According to the latest statics, cancer claimed more than an estimated 600,000 lives in 2015, totaling 8.7 million years of life. (Photo: Shutterstock)
As terrible as the toll is on human lives, the cost of cancer doesn't leave the country's economy unscathed.
A new study from the American Cancer Society published in JAMA Oncology finds that fighting cancer pays off not just in human lives but also in economic terms. “When you invest in cancer prevention, treatment, and screenings, you don't just save lives. There are also substantial financial benefits,” said Dr. Farhad Islami, scientific director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society and a coauthor of the study.
According to the latest statics, cancer claimed more than an estimated 600,000 lives in 2015, totaling 8.7 million years of life, but it also cost the economy some $94.4 billion in lost wages. That number could be even higher, since people younger than 16 or older than 85 were not included in that toll.
Related: Cancer care challenges employers, health plan budgets
The study translates the economic cost of cancer into human capital, estimating the effect of cancer deaths on the economy instead of the overall value of life lost—termed the “willingness-to-pay” approach. The study also evaluated each state's economic burden from cancer deaths, since they vary geographically across the country.
The West suffered least from lost earnings, with Utah clocking in at the lowest overall rate: $19.6 million in lost earnings per 100,000 people. The cost in dollars was highest in the South, with Kentucky suffering the highest financial toll at $35.3 million per 100,000 people.
According to the report, “If all 50 states had a rate equivalent to Utah's, approximately 2.4 million years of lost life could have been avoided and $27.7 billion in lost earning saved—a 29 percent national reduction in lost earnings.”
Considered by cancer type, lung cancer was the most costly, higher than any other cancer across all states, amassing total lost earnings of $21.3 billion. It was followed by colorectal and breast cancers at $9.4 billion and $6.2 billion, respectively.
Improved cancer prevention, achieved via focus on risk factors—such as diet, exercise and smoking— better screening and better treatments, can help to bring down the numbers. But not everyone gets screened or can follow through on care.
“These types of analyses help us prioritize where to put our resources,” Cathy Bradley, associate dean for research and deputy director of the University of Colorado Cancer Center, is quoted saying in the report. Bradley reviewed the study but was not involved in the work. She adds, “We want to allocate the limited resources we have to diseases and conditions with the biggest impact. And productivity is one way of measuring the impact.”
Read more:
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Marlene Satter
Marlene Y. Satter has worked in and written about the financial industry for decades.
