A note on the methodology: in the first version of this chart, which was only published to our email list, we got the budgets of each state, extracted how much they spend on health, then calculated both the per capita expenditure on health (in USD) as well as the percentage of the budget spent on health. We believe that a more accurate data point than the announced budget for each state would be the budget implementation, but these reports are not available for most states. For example, our highest ranked state, Cross River, has a budget that is deemed by many, including us, to be unrealistic. This fact is responsible for the lower weighting given to budgets in our ranking. Recently, however, the doctor to population ratios of each state became available, so we have updated the ranking to include that criterion. The doctor to population ratio of Borno state is not available. To weight how seriously each state takes its health expenditure, we included some other outcomes, namely, infant mortality and Human Development Index. Finally, to produce the rankings, we weighted as follows: Doctor to population ratio – 30%; Infant Mortality – 25%; Human Development Index – 20%; Portion of budget spent on health – 10%, Per capita budget – 10%; Average household size – 5% where states were scored based on the size of a household compared to a standard household size of four. A lower household size attracted a higher score. This index is meant to be produced once a year.