The Spending Gap Is Stark and Well-Documented
The Lancet Global Health paper’s central claim — that 4.5 million of 9.4 million cancer deaths within five years of diagnosis are avoidable — sits against a funding landscape dramatically tilted toward treatment. OECD Health at a Glance 2025 confirms that prevention spending returned to its historical level of 3% of total health expenditure in 2023, after a brief COVID-era spike to 6% driven by pandemic-specific measures like testing and contact tracing, ‘rather than long-term planned investments into population health’ (OECD, 2023).
Cancer-specific research funding tells an even sharper story. A comprehensive Lancet Oncology analysis of $24.5 billion in public and philanthropic cancer research funding (2016–2020) found preclinical research absorbed 73.5%, drug treatment took 19.6%, while public health research received just 9.4% — and the authors noted ‘the true proportion of spend on cancer prevention and early detection… is likely to be even lower than reported’ (McIntosh et al., 2023). The European Commission invested over 49% of its cancer research budget in basic research, compared with under 4% in cancer prevention (Eckhouse et al., 2008).
Meanwhile, global spending on cancer medicines reached $223 billion in 2023 and is projected to hit $409 billion by 2028 (IQVIA, 2024). The total global economic cost of cancer from 2020 to 2050 is projected at $25.2 trillion in 2017 international dollars — equivalent to an annual tax of 0.55% on global GDP. Lung cancer alone accounts for 15.4% of that cost, followed by colorectal (10.9%) and breast cancer (7.7%) (Chen et al., 2023). The OECD estimates that cancer costs its member countries €449 billion annually in direct health expenditure — more than France’s total annual health budget — and reduces workforce output by an additional €163 billion through lost productivity, roughly equivalent to Hungary’s GDP (OECD, 2024).
Early Detection Transforms Survival and Costs
The economic case for catching cancer early is overwhelming. Five-year survival for localised breast cancer is 100% versus 32% for distant-stage disease (NCI SEER, 2015–2021). For colorectal cancer, the gap is 91.5% versus approximately 15%. For non-small-cell lung cancer — the largest single preventable burden — localised five-year survival reaches 65% but once metastasised it collapses to 9% (American Cancer Society/SEER).
These survival differences translate directly into costs. A 2025 UK NHS study found early-stage cancer treatment averaged £11,200 versus £23,800 for late-stage, more than double. A hypothetical shift to 75% early detection could save a single NHS Trust £14.7 million over four years, or free capacity to treat 1,028 additional patients (Butnari et al., 2025). US Medicare data show late-stage beneficiaries incur costs up to seven times higher than early-stage patients (Current Medical Research and Opinion, 2022). Australia’s bowel screening programme demonstrates the mechanism: screening reduces the proportion of patients presenting with metastatic disease from 18% to 3% and increases the proportion of patients with localised disease from 17% to over 40% (Pignone et al., 2011).
The UK’s three national cancer screening programmes (breast, bowel, cervical) save an estimated 10,000 lives per year combined (Nuffield Trust). The bowel screening programme achieves a cost per QALY of under £3,000 — far below standard cost-effectiveness thresholds (Logan et al., 2012). Japan’s endoscopic gastric cancer screening programme — the world’s longest-running — achieves a 47–61% reduction in gastric cancer mortality, detecting over 80% of cancers at an early stage (Hamashima et al., 2022). Nordic cervical screening programmes drove mortality reductions of 25–80% depending on the degree of organised coverage — Iceland’s nationwide programme achieved the largest reduction (Lääärä et al., 1987).
Structural Barriers Explain the Chronic Underinvestment
Three interlocking mechanisms explain why systems consistently underfund prevention despite clear evidence of returns.
The ‘wrong pocket’ problem is the most fundamental. The entity that invests in prevention is rarely the one that captures the financial savings. McCullough (2019) found that every $1 invested in US public health departments generated $67 to $88 of societal benefit, yet public health agencies have limited ability to reap the savings from their programs’ impacts,’ creating a free-rider problem where beneficiaries ‘have little incentive to unilaterally invest’ (McCullough, 2019). A 2025 pharmacoeconomics review formalised this: ‘the investment in prevention generally has to come from a single sector (e.g., healthcare) while the benefits arise in different sectors (e.g., social services, employers)’ (Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 2025).
Budget silos reinforce this dynamic. The Health Foundation (2024) found that ‘government departments currently operate mainly in siloes with little incentive to act toward a shared goal of preventing ill health… health remains narrowly the focus of the Department of Health and Social Care rather than the whole of government.’ A UK economic analysis calculated that public health investment is 3–4 times more cost-effective at generating health gains than NHS treatment spending (Martin, Lomas & Claxton, 2020), with evidence of £14 returned for every £1 invested — yet the ringfenced Public Health Grant represents just 0.3% of total government spending (Economics by Design, 2025).
Political cycle mismatch completes the trap. Drouin et al. (2022) found that ‘curative health care has short-term effects and is salient (loud) among the public and interest groups. In contrast, preventive care is likely to figure at the bottom of governments’ priority list, since its benefits unfold in the long term and because it is a quiet public good’ (Drouin et al., 2022). Prevention spending proved ‘particularly vulnerable to economic constraints’ during the 2008 recession, and the OECD confirmed this pattern of austerity-driven deprioritisation repeated across its members (Business at OECD, 2025).
Cancer, Ageing, and the Fiscal Time Bomb
The connection between cancer and ageing populations makes prevention an urgent fiscal question. In 2022, approximately 53% of people diagnosed with cancer were aged 65 or older (GLOBOCAN 2022/UICC), and older adults are 11 times more likely to develop cancer than younger people. With the global population aged 65+ projected to nearly double from 760 million to 1.6 billion by 2050, the OECD projects that per capita cancer health expenditure will grow by 67% between 2023 and 2050, driven solely by population ageing (OECD, 2024). The IMF’s April 2025 World Economic Outlook projects that, absent reform, age-related expenditures in advanced economies will increase by nearly 8.5 percentage points of GDP by 2100, driven mainly by healthcare (IMF, 2025).
The IMF explicitly connects prevention to fiscal relief. Its April 2025 WEO estimates that healthy ageing trends — including those driven by prevention — could boost annual global growth by approximately 0.4 percentage points over 2025–50 by extending working lives and enhancing productivity. In a companion piece, Andrew Scott and Peter Piot wrote that ‘healthy life expectancy has not grown as fast as overall life expectancy, causing an expansion of morbidity,’ and identified prevention as the key to reversing this pattern — including ‘taxes on alcohol and tobacco’ that ‘can generate fiscal revenue, and preventive health policies can lead to future saving on health care spending’ (IMF Finance & Development, June 2025).
The OECD estimates that achieving policy targets for six key cancer risk factors could prevent 8% of all cancer cases, 12% of premature cancer deaths, and reduce cancer health expenditure by 9% between 2023 and 2050. Tobacco targets alone would prevent 56,000 premature deaths annually across OECD countries — one death every ten minutes — and save €13.3 billion in cancer health expenditure (OECD, 2024).
Tobacco and HPV: Proof That Prevention Works When Funded
Tobacco control offers the strongest proof of concept. An analysis in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (2025) estimated that 3.8 million lung cancer deaths were averted in the United States between 1970 and 2022 due to tobacco control, resulting in 76 million person-years of life gained—an average of 19.8 years per averted death (Islami et al., 2025). A 48-country study found 3.1 million avoided lung cancer deaths globally since mortality peaks, representing 21.5% of expected male lung cancer mortality (Warkentin et al., 2024). UK adult smoking prevalence fell from approximately 45% when records began to 12.9% in 2022 (ONS, 2022). WHO identifies tobacco taxation as a ‘best buy’ intervention costing less than $100 per DALY averted in low- and middle-income countries. A global price increase of $0.80 per pack could raise excise revenues by 47% ($140 billion), reduce smoking rates by 9%, and produce 66 million fewer adult smokers (WHO, 2017).
HPV vaccination demonstrates both the potential and the equity failure. In England, HPV vaccination reduced cervical cancer rates by 87% in women vaccinated at age 12–13 — the programme ‘has successfully almost eliminated cervical cancer in women born since Sept 1, 1995’ (Falcaro et al., 2021). Australia is projected to eliminate cervical cancer entirely by 2028, with HPV vaccine-type infections falling 77% among 18–24-year-olds within five years of programme launch (Hall et al., 2018). Rwanda proved it works in low-income settings too, achieving 93% coverage as the first African country to implement national HPV vaccination (Binagwaho et al., 2012).
Yet globally, first-dose HPV vaccination coverage among girls aged 9–14 stands at just 27% (WHO/UNICEF, 2023). In less developed regions, full-course coverage is only 2.7% versus 33.6% in more developed regions (Bruni et al., 2016). Sub-Saharan Africa’s cervical screening coverage averages just 4% (WHO/WEF, 2024). The WHO’s 90-70-90 cervical cancer elimination targets could avert 74 million cases and 62 million deaths over the next century, with vaccination costing approximately $16 per girl in Gavi-eligible countries at $330 per DALY averted (WHO Global Strategy, 2020). The contrast with the $223 billion annual cancer treatment bill is difficult to overstate.
Conclusion: A Usable Evidence Base for the Argument
The data converge on a single structural diagnosis. The Langselius et al. finding that 47.6% of cancer deaths are avoidable is robustly supported by outcome evidence from every country that has seriously invested in prevention — from US tobacco control (3.8 million lung cancer deaths averted) to England’s HPV programme (87% cervical cancer reduction) to Japan’s gastric screening (up to 61% mortality reduction). The barriers are not evidentiary but institutional: the wrong-pocket problem, budget silos, and political short-termism systematically divert resources away from treatment. With ageing populations set to increase per capita cancer expenditure by 67% by 2050, and the IMF now explicitly framing prevention as a growth and fiscal strategy, the case for restructuring incentives has never been stronger. Prevention at 3% of health spending is not a funding level — it is a policy choice with a $25.2 trillion price tag.
References
Binagwaho, Agnes, et al. “Achieving High Coverage in Rwanda’s National Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Programme.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 90, no. 8, 2012, pp. 623-628. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3417784/.
Bruni, Laia, et al. “Global Estimates of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage by Region and Income Level: A Pooled Analysis.” The Lancet Global Health, vol. 4, no. 7, 2016, pp. e453-e463. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(16)30099-7/fulltext.
Business at OECD. Health as an Economic Imperative: Synthesis Report, March 2025. https://www.businessatoecd.org/hubfs/Policy%20Groups/20.%20Health/FIN-2025-03%20Health%20as%20an%20Economic%20Imperative.pdf.
Butnari, Cristina, et al. “The Crucial Role of Early Diagnosis for Patients and the Nation, Understanding the Costs of Late-Stage Cancer Diagnosis.” Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, vol. 23, 2025, p. 5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12570495/.
Chen, Simiao, et al. “Estimates and Projections of the Global Economic Cost of 29 Cancers in 204 Countries and Territories From 2020 to 2050.” JAMA Oncology, vol. 9, no. 4, 2023, pp. 465-472. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36821107/.
“Cost of Cancer Management by Stage at Diagnosis Among Medicare Beneficiaries.” Current Medical Research and Opinion, vol. 38, no. 7, 2022, pp. 1285-1294. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2022.2047536.
Drouin, Olivier, et al. “The Politics of Public Health Investments.” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 307, 2022, p. 115179. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953622005780.
Eckhouse, Sally, et al. “A Comparative Review of Public and Philanthropic Funding for Cancer Research in the EU and USA.” Molecular Oncology, vol. 2, no. 1, 2008, pp. 49-58.
Economics by Design. “Understanding Health Expenditure.” 2025. https://economicsbydesign.com/data-signals/understanding-health-expenditure/.
“Future Directions for the Economics of Prevention.” Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, vol. 25, no. 1, 2025. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14737167.2025.2498665.
Falcaro, Milena, et al. “The Effects of the National HPV Vaccination Programme in England, UK, on Cervical Cancer and Grade 3 Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Incidence.” The Lancet, vol. 398, no. 10316, 2021, pp. 2084-2092. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02178-4/fulltext.
Hall, Marion T., et al. “The Projected Timeframe Until Cervical Cancer Elimination in Australia: A Modelling Study.” The Lancet Public Health, vol. 4, no. 1, 2018, pp. e19-e27. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30183-X/fulltext.
Hamashima, Chisato, et al. “Effectiveness of Endoscopic Screening for Gastric Cancer: The Japan Public Health Center-Based Prospective Study.” Cancer Science, vol. 113, no. 11, 2022, pp. 3897-3906. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9633299/.
Health Foundation. How Can the Next Government Take Prevention from Rhetoric to Reality? 2024. https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/briefings/how-can-the-next-government-take-prevention-from-rhetoric-to-reality.
IMF. World Economic Outlook, April 2025. International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/weo/2025/april/english/ch2.pdf.
IQVIA. Global Oncology Trends 2024. IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, 2024.
Islami, Farhad, et al. “Lung Cancer Deaths Averted Due to Tobacco Control in the United States, 1970-2022.” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2025.
Lääärä, Esa, et al. “Trends in Mortality from Cervical Cancer in the Nordic Countries: Association with Organised Screening Programmes.” The Lancet, vol. 329, no. 8544, 1987, pp. 1247-1249. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2884378/.
Logan, Richard F.A., et al. “Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England After the First 1 Million Tests.” Gut, vol. 61, no. 10, 2012, pp. 1439-1446. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3437782/.
Martin, Stephen, James Lomas, and Karl Claxton. “Is an Ounce of Prevention Worth a Pound of Cure? Estimates of the Impact of English Public Health Grant on Mortality and Morbidity.” BMJ Open, vol. 10, no. 10, 2020, e033560.
McCullough, Jeffrey M. “Declines in Spending Despite Positive Returns on Investment: Understanding Public Health’s Wrong Pocket Problem.” Frontiers in Public Health, vol. 7, 2019, p. 159. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00159/full.
McIntosh, Matthew, et al. “Global Funding for Cancer Research Between 2016 and 2020: A Content Analysis of Public and Philanthropic Investments.” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 24, no. 6, 2023, pp. 636-645. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(23)00182-1/fulltext.
Nuffield Trust. “Cancer Screening.” https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/breast-and-cervical-cancer-screening.
OECD. Health at a Glance 2023. OECD Publishing, 2023. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2023_7a7afb35-en.html.
OECD. Tackling the Impact of Cancer on Health, the Economy and Society. OECD Publishing, 2024. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/tackling-the-impact-of-cancer-on-health-the-economy-and-society_85e7c3ba-en.html.
Office for National Statistics. Adult Smoking Habits in the UK: 2022. ONS, 2022. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/adultsmokinghabitsingreatbritain/2022.
Pignone, Michael, et al. “Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Full Implementation of a Biennial Faecal Occult Blood Test Screening Program for Bowel Cancer in Australia.” Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 194, no. 4, 2011, pp. 180-185. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2011/194/4/costs-and-cost-effectiveness-full-implementation-biennial-faecal-occult-blood.
Scott, Andrew, and Peter Piot. “The Longevity Dividend.” IMF Finance & Development, June 2025. https://www.imf.org/en/publications/fandd/issues/2025/06/the-longevity-dividend-andrew-scott.
Warkentin, Matthew T., et al. “The Impact of Tobacco Control on Lung Cancer Mortality Across 48 Countries.” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 19, no. 9, 2024, S438. https://www.jto.org/article/S1556-0864(24)01067-0/fulltext.
WHO. Global Strategy to Accelerate the Elimination of Cervical Cancer as a Public Health Problem. World Health Organization, 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240014107.
WHO. “Tobacco Control Can Save Billions of Dollars and Millions of Lives.” 2017. https://www.who.int/news/item/10-01-2017-tobacco-control-can-save-billions-of-dollars-and-millions-of-lives.
