The Global Status of Universal Health Coverage and Oncology Care

authors:

avatar Kamran Bagheri Lankarani ORCID 1 , *

Health Policy Research Center, Institute of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

how to cite: Bagheri Lankarani K. The Global Status of Universal Health Coverage and Oncology Care. Shiraz E-Med J.23(9):e129053. doi: 10.5812/semj-129053.

Abstract

The reduction of preventable deaths from non-communicable diseases, including cancers, is one of the main targets of universal health coverage. Not only there is a shortage of financial resources for universal health coverage for cancer patients in many countries, but also there are many challenges in the continuity and the quality of care. There are disparities rooted in both providers’ and patients’ behavior at the time of care. Unmet needs for information on treatment and prognosis, inadequate cost coverage of care, and inadequate support for other living costs are contributing factors to poor prognosis in cancer patients, especially in cases with advanced stages and those living in low-income countries. There is a need for a comprehensive, holistic approach to the care of cancer patients considering the patients’ socioeconomic and cultural status and the institutional status of the providers.

1. Background

United Nations Sustainable Development Goal Number Three targeted reduction of premature death from non-communicable diseases, including cancers, and achievement of universal health coverage (UHC), focusing on financial protection and access to high-quality health services, including medications. Both of these targets are very relevant in the care of cancer patients (1).

Despite these targets and the global agenda, malignancies are a growing cause of catastrophic health expenditure worldwide. The global burden of cancers has increased even during the recent pandemic of COVID-19. These realities indicate that the current approaches to the care of cancer patients are not adequate and not appropriate. This study aimed to summarize the current global approaches under the UHC agenda for cancer care and its challenges.

2. Prevention

Many cancers have a close association with environmental hazards, which are more prevalent among lower socioeconomic classes.

Tobacco has been associated with many cancers. Although many countries have ratified the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, in reality, the implementation is far behind the ideal. Many strategies for the prevention and control of tobacco smoking are intersectoral and behind the scope of this paper. However, the treatment of current users, which should be part of health care and needs both behavioral and medicinal approaches, is not covered in many countries.

There are few effective vaccines to prevent cancers. Hepatitis B vaccination for hepatocellular carcinoma is now widely integrated into neonatal immunization programs globally, but there are still populations with low neonatal vaccine coverage, which need enhancement strategies (2). The relatively high-cost human papillomavirus vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer has prevented its wide availability, especially in needy countries. Without cost reduction in the range of 50% cost-effectiveness of this vaccine has been questioned, at least in low- and middle-income countries (3).

3. Screening

Cancer screening programs need to be in concordance with the social context and available resources and prioritized based on the current and forecasted burden of cancers. Screening at the community level will be failed if these issues are not considered (4). Community awareness of screening programs and increasing the understanding of the target population of the screening procedures and their benefits and hazards are a cornerstone for acceptance and utility of screening at the community level (5). Telemedicine and digital health could potentially expand the screening programs (6).

Coverage by insurance has a positive impact on the utility of cancer screening procedures, which could ultimately lead to a better outcome in these patients (7, 8). The utility of these services was affected by socioeconomic status and probably cultural context even after full coverage of the costs (8-11).

4. Treatment

Cancer treatments, especially surgery and chemotherapy, are among the most important causes of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) (12). Using oncology treatment modalities is dependent on socioeconomic status and financial protection provided by the states (12). Cancer treatment costs have been one of the major determinants of CHE in many countries, with an upward trend in recent years (13). Although there has been progress toward universal health coverage for non-communicable diseases, including cancer, since the announcement of the sustainable development goals in 2015, there is still a need for financial protection, especially for high-cost anti-cancer drugs (14).

Access to efficient treatment modalities, including radiotherapy, is very limited in some parts of the world. This makes the holistic approach to treatment impossible globally and increases avoidable mortality and morbidity from cancers (15). Even some drugs with proven effects in the treatment of certain cancers are not included in the essential drug list of some countries, while others have included medicines without proven effects (16, 17).

The relatively high cost of cancer management is a global challenge with resultant financial toxicity for patients and their families (18). Financial toxicity is now a universal problem for cancer patients. It is more serious in countries without universal health coverage, but even in countries with relatively good UHC, there are patients who experience financial toxicity due to no coverage of the costs by the basic package of UHC or overutilization of treatments, among other reasons (19). In addition, there are groups without UHC in these countries, including immigrants and minorities.

Implementation of universal health coverage has shown to decrease mortality in some cancers (20-22). Universal health coverage implementation also has resulted in shorter treatment intervals from diagnosis and lower rates of treatment abandonment, especially in lower socioeconomic groups (21, 23-25). Despite these benefits, there are examples of the failure of this approach in reducing mortality. Insurance coverage of treatments increased access very rapidly, but this did not end in a better prognosis for all patients (26). Having UHC but not supporting the basic costs for life has not improved the prognosis in cancer patients with low income, even in countries with good UHC (27).

The outcome of cancers between and within countries varies according to socioeconomic status (27-29). Even potentially treatable pediatric cancers have a poor outcome in low- and middle-income countries (29). Health systems, especially in these countries, need to implement operational plans for cancer registry, effective use of available resources, equitable distribution of cancer centers, capacity building, and ultimately universal health coverage for treatable and common malignancies with emphasis not only on treatment but also screening and prevention (30).

Patients’ awareness has a crucial role in commitment to treatment and screening programs, which ultimately result in better outcomes in those with higher education regardless of their socioeconomic status (31).

The use of digital health for continuity of care and even as a supportive measure for palliative care is now an accessible modality even in low-income countries, and it should be part of real practice (32).

It should be emphasized that recent experiences in reform focusing on infrastructures by improving the environment, increasing the medicines and equipment, and even increasing the number of staff without programs for the promotion of quality of care have not improved the outcomes and coverage of services (33).

There are suggestions for value-based pricing for oncology drugs (18). These suggestions are criticized for their possible effect on innovations in the field. However, it is clear that the current approach to pricing cancer medicines is not parallel with clinical outcomes. The maximum proven value of many expensive drugs is to extend a poor quality life expectancy by a few months. Oncology societies worldwide should be committed to value-based care, and the providers should avoid low-value care and consider the patients’ ability to pay in their clinical decisions. At the same time, the Ministries of Health should supervise the implementation of value-based care, especially for expensive care of cancer patients through insurance companies and accreditation procedures (34).

There is an increasing trend in the use of complementary medicine, especially in end-stage states of cancer patients. This has resulted in increased costs and even CHE for some families (35). Many of these drugs and procedures do not have good scientific support and are not covered by UHC programs. There is an urgent need for a scientific approach in this regard to responding to this demand. This needs consideration of evidence-based complementary medicine in the package of services in UHC. There is urgent need to increase patients' awareness of those expensive complementary medicines, which have no benefit or are even harmful in the care of cancer patients (35).

5. Cancer Survivors

The psychosocial pain of cancer, discrimination, experiencing financial toxicity, and stringent behavior of supportive and insurance companies have made the survivors of cancers and their families a vulnerable group (36). Fear of recurrence and distress of the possibility of cancer occurrence in their beloved relatives adds to this vulnerability. The problem is more pronounced for childhood cancer survivors (36). This neglected aspect of long-term care of these patients needs to be managed at the individual level by a multiorganization and holistic approach.

6. End-of-Life Care

Death is a reality, and malignancies are a growing cause of death worldwide. The process of end-of-life care is an ignored part of care, especially for cancer patients. Access to such care is not available in many countries, and in those who provide this care, the quality of such care and the costs are concerns, which may result in cost dissaving (37, 38).

7. Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Care

This pandemic has had tremendous effects on the care of cancer patients and screening procedures for cancers. Overloaded health system with COVID-10 patients, along with cancer patients’ hesitancy to attend the health care facilities due to fear of COVID-19, have hindered the care of these patients (39). National cancer programs in all aspects, from prevention to treatment, have been affected globally, and it is predicted that the recovery of these programs will take at least a decade or longer, especially in low- and middle-income countries (39).

Despite these challenges, COVID-19 could become a momentum for reform of health systems. The importance of health as the major driver of the economy is now well recognized. Meanwhile, many countries, even the low- and middle-income states, have experienced the use of their primary health care, information technologies, and digital health in control of this pandemic. This could become an opportunity to expand the cancer screening programs and even the treatment of malignancies (40).

8. The Way Forward

The current evidence shows that although there is an inadequate financial resource for universal health coverage of oncology care in many countries, even with adequate resources, the prognosis and quality of life have not improved for all cancer patients. Despite UHC, there are disparities rooted in both provider and patients’ behavior at the time of care (41). Unmet needs for information on treatment and prognosis, inadequate cost coverage of care, and inadequate support for other living costs are contributing factors to poor prognosis in cancer patients, especially in those with advanced stages (42).

There is a need for a comprehensive, holistic approach to the care of cancer patients considering the patients’ socioeconomic and cultural status and providers’ institutional status.

References

  • 1.

    Extermann M, Brain E, Canin B, Cherian MN, Cheung KL, de Glas N, et al. Priorities for the global advancement of care for older adults with cancer: an update of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Priorities Initiative. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(1):e29-36. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30473-3. [PubMed: 33387502].

  • 2.

    Howell J, Pedrana A, Schroeder SE, Scott N, Aufegger L, Atun R, et al. A global investment framework for the elimination of hepatitis B. J Hepatol. 2021;74(3):535-49. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.09.013. [PubMed: 32971137]. [PubMed Central: PMC7505744].

  • 3.

    Ma X, Harripersaud K, Smith K, Fairley CK, Zou H, Zou Z, et al. Modeling the epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness of a combined schoolgirl HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening program among Chinese women. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021;17(4):1073-82. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1832835. [PubMed: 33269990]. [PubMed Central: PMC8018426].

  • 4.

    Sharma A, Alatise OI, O'Connell K, Ogunleye SG, Aderounmu AA, Samson ML, et al. Healthcare utilisation, cancer screening and potential barriers to accessing cancer care in rural South West Nigeria: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(7). e040352. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040352. [PubMed: 34312189]. [PubMed Central: PMC8314695].

  • 5.

    Ploysawang P, Rojanamatin J, Prapakorn S, Jamsri P, Pangmuang P, Seeda K, et al. National Cervical Cancer Screening in Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2021;22(1):25-30. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.1.25. [PubMed: 33507675]. [PubMed Central: PMC8184188].

  • 6.

    Malek Pascha VA, Sun L, Gilardino R, Legood R. Telemammography for breast cancer screening: a cost-effective approach in Argentina. BMJ Health Care Inform. 2021;28(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100351. [PubMed: 34281995]. [PubMed Central: PMC8290945].

  • 7.

    Sun J, Perraillon MC, Myerson R. The Impact of Medicare Health Insurance Coverage on Lung Cancer Screening. Med Care. 2022;60(1):29-36. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001655. [PubMed: 34739415]. [PubMed Central: PMC8663516].

  • 8.

    Jacobs PD, Abdus S. Changes in preventive service use by race and ethnicity after medicare eligibility in the United States. Prev Med. 2022;157:106996. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.106996. [PubMed: 35189202].

  • 9.

    Sripan P, Chitapanarux I, Tharavichitkul E, Muangwong P, Pongnikorn D, Waisri N, et al. Disparities in the change of cervical cancer mortality rate between urban and rural Chiang Mai in the era of universal health care and the Thai national screening program. Int J Equity Health. 2021;20(1):175. doi: 10.1186/s12939-021-01515-1. [PubMed: 34325727]. [PubMed Central: PMC8323343].

  • 10.

    McEvoy CS, Shah NG, Roberts SE, Carroll AM, Platz TA, Oxner CR, et al. Universal Healthcare Coverage Does Not Ensure Adherence to Initial Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines. Mil Med. 2021;186(11-12):e1071-6. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usaa319. [PubMed: 33211098].

  • 11.

    Kerrison RS, Sheik-Mohamud D, McBride E, Whitaker KL, Rees C, Duffy S, et al. Patient barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use: A rapid systematic review and thematic synthesis of the qualitative literature. Prev Med. 2021;145:106413. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106413. [PubMed: 33412167].

  • 12.

    Zhao Y, Tang S, Mao W, Akinyemiju T. Socio-Economic and Rural-Urban Differences in Healthcare and Catastrophic Health Expenditure Among Cancer Patients in China: Analysis of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. Front Public Health. 2021;9:779285. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.779285. [PubMed: 35087783]. [PubMed Central: PMC8787105].

  • 13.

    Wang J, Tan X, Qi X, Zhang X, Liu H, Wang K, et al. Minimizing the Risk of Catastrophic Health Expenditure in China: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Vulnerable Groups. Front Public Health. 2021;9:689809. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.689809. [PubMed: 34422747]. [PubMed Central: PMC8377675].

  • 14.

    Gilardino RE, Valanzasca P, Rifkin SB. Has Latin America achieved universal health coverage yet? Lessons from four countries. Arch Public Health. 2022;80(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s13690-022-00793-7. [PubMed: 35063033]. [PubMed Central: PMC8777418].

  • 15.

    Lombe D, M'Ule B C, Msadabwe SC, Chanda E. Gynecological radiation oncology in sub-Saharan Africa: status, problems and considerations for the future. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022;32(3):451-6. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-002461. [PubMed: 35256436].

  • 16.

    Piggott T, Nowak A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Cooke GS, Huttner B, Schunemann HJ, et al. Global status of essential medicine selection: a systematic comparison of national essential medicine lists with recommendations by WHO. BMJ Open. 2022;12(2). e053349. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053349. [PubMed: 35144950]. [PubMed Central: PMC8845216].

  • 17.

    Odoch WD, Dambisya Y, Peacocke E, Sandberg KI, Hembre BSH. The role of government agencies and other actors in influencing access to medicines in three East African countries. Health Policy Plan. 2021;36(3):312-21. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czaa189. [PubMed: 33569583]. [PubMed Central: PMC8101087].

  • 18.

    Leighl NB, Nirmalakumar S, Ezeife DA, Gyawali B. An Arm and a Leg: The Rising Cost of Cancer Drugs and Impact on Access. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2021;41:1-12. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_100028. [PubMed: 33956494].

  • 19.

    Bhanvadia SK, Psutka SP, Burg ML, de Wit R, Dhillon HM, Gyawali B, et al. Financial Toxicity Among Patients with Prostate, Bladder, and Kidney Cancer: A Systematic Review and Call to Action. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(3):396-404. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.02.007. [PubMed: 33820747].

  • 20.

    Luo C, Li N, Lu B, Cai J, Lu M, Zhang Y, et al. Global and regional trends in incidence and mortality of female breast cancer and associated factors at national level in 2000 to 2019. Chin Med J (Engl). 2021;135(1):42-51. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000001814. [PubMed: 34593698]. [PubMed Central: PMC8850868].

  • 21.

    Cole AP, Herzog P, Iyer HS, Marchese M, Mahal BA, Lipsitz SR, et al. Racial differences in the treatment and outcomes for prostate cancer in Massachusetts. Cancer. 2021;127(15):2714-23. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33564. [PubMed: 33999405]. [PubMed Central: PMC9107927].

  • 22.

    Duggan C, Trapani D, Ilbawi AM, Fidarova E, Laversanne M, Curigliano G, et al. National health system characteristics, breast cancer stage at diagnosis, and breast cancer mortality: a population-based analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(11):1632-42. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00462-9. [PubMed: 34653370].

  • 23.

    Indraswari BW, Kelling E, Vassileva SM, Sitaresmi MN, Danardono D, Mulatsih S, et al. Impact of universal health coverage on childhood cancer outcomes in Indonesia. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2021;68(9). e29186. doi: 10.1002/pbc.29186. [PubMed: 34114307].

  • 24.

    Gbenonsi G, Boucham M, Belrhiti Z, Nejjari C, Huybrechts I, Khalis M. Health system factors that influence diagnostic and treatment intervals in women with breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1325. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11296-5. [PubMed: 34229634]. [PubMed Central: PMC8259007].

  • 25.

    Albright BB, Nasioudis D, Craig S, Moss HA, Latif NA, Ko EM, et al. Impact of Medicaid expansion on women with gynecologic cancer: a difference-in-difference analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(2):195 e1-195 e17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.08.007. [PubMed: 32777264]. [PubMed Central: PMC8128375].

  • 26.

    Munoz-Aguirre P, Huerta-Gutierrez R, Zamora S, Mohar A, Vega-Vega L, Hernandez-Avila JE, et al. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia Survival in Children Covered by Seguro Popular in Mexico: A National Comprehensive Analysis 2005-2017. Health Syst Reform. 2021;7(1). e1914897. doi: 10.1080/23288604.2021.1914897. [PubMed: 34125000].

  • 27.

    Kim DJ, Yoo JW, Chang JW, Yamashita T, Park EC, Han KT, et al. Does low income effects 5-year mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma patients? Int J Equity Health. 2021;20(1):151. doi: 10.1186/s12939-021-01498-z. [PubMed: 34465351]. [PubMed Central: PMC8408948].

  • 28.

    Tosoni A, Gatto L, Franceschi E, Di Nunno V, Lodi R, Mura A, et al. Association between socioeconomic status and survival in glioblastoma: An Italian single-centre prospective observational study. Eur J Cancer. 2021;145:171-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.12.027. [PubMed: 33486440].

  • 29.

    Van Weelderen RE, Klein K, Natawidjaja MD, De Vries R, Kaspers GJ. Outcome of pediatric acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the literature. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2021;21(7):765-80. doi: 10.1080/14737140.2021.1895756. [PubMed: 33779466].

  • 30.

    Barrios CH, Werutsky G, Mohar A, Ferrigno AS, Muller BG, Bychkovsky BL, et al. Cancer control in Latin America and the Caribbean: recent advances and opportunities to move forward. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(11):e474-87. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00492-7. [PubMed: 34735817].

  • 31.

    Kuo WY, Hsu HS, Kung PT, Tsai WC. Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Cancer Incidence Risk, Cancer Staging, and Survival of Patients with Colorectal Cancer under Universal Health Insurance Coverage in Taiwan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(22). doi: 10.3390/ijerph182212164. [PubMed: 34831918]. [PubMed Central: PMC8625901].

  • 32.

    Nkhoma KB, Ebenso B, Akeju D, Adejoh S, Bennett M, Chirenje M, et al. Stakeholder perspectives and requirements to guide the development of digital technology for palliative cancer services: a multi-country, cross-sectional, qualitative study in Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe. BMC Palliat Care. 2021;20(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s12904-020-00694-y. [PubMed: 33397321]. [PubMed Central: PMC7784352].

  • 33.

    Stacey N, Mirelman A, Kreif N, Suhrcke M, Hofman K, Edoka I. Facility standards and the quality of public sector primary care: Evidence from South Africa's "Ideal Clinics" program. Health Econ. 2021;30(7):1543-58. doi: 10.1002/hec.4228. [PubMed: 33728741].

  • 34.

    Seymour EK, de Souza JA, Fendrick AM. Incorporating Value-Based Care Into Oncology. Cancer J. 2020;26(4):311-22. doi: 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000459. [PubMed: 32732674].

  • 35.

    Bhoo-Pathy N, Subramaniam S, Khalil S, Kimman M, Kong YC, Ng CW, et al. Out-of-Pocket Costs of Complementary Medicine Following Cancer and the Financial Impact in a Setting With Universal Health Coverage: Findings From a Prospective Cohort Study. JCO Oncol Pract. 2021;17(10):e1592-602. doi: 10.1200/OP.20.01052. [PubMed: 34077232].

  • 36.

    Hendriks MJ, Harju E, Roser K, Ienca M, Michel G. The long shadow of childhood cancer: a qualitative study on insurance hardship among survivors of childhood cancer. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):503. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06543-9. [PubMed: 34034742]. [PubMed Central: PMC8152348].

  • 37.

    Bhadelia A, Oldfield LE, Cruz JL, Singh R, Finkelstein EA. Identifying Core Domains to Assess the "Quality of Death": A Scoping Review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2022;63(4):e365-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.11.015. [PubMed: 34896278].

  • 38.

    Jane Bates M, Gordon MRP, Gordon SB, Tomeny EM, Muula AS, Davies H, et al. Palliative care and catastrophic costs in Malawi after a diagnosis of advanced cancer: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(12):e1750-7. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00408-3. [PubMed: 34756183]. [PubMed Central: PMC8600125].

  • 39.

    Pravettoni G, Masiero M, Mugo-Sitati C, Torode J. Gordon McVie: his legacy as a blueprint for cancer advocates as we strive towards the 2030 global health and sustainable development goals. Ecancermedicalscience. 2022;16:1341. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2022.1341. [PubMed: 35242222]. [PubMed Central: PMC8831102].

  • 40.

    Woo YL, Gravitt P, Khor SK, Ng CW, Saville M. Accelerating action on cervical screening in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) post COVID-19 era. Prev Med. 2021;144:106294. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106294. [PubMed: 33678225]. [PubMed Central: PMC7931730].

  • 41.

    Koehlmoos TP, Korona-Bailey J, Janvrin ML, Madsen C. Racial Disparities in the Military Health System: A Framework Synthesis. Mil Med. 2021. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usab506. [PubMed: 34910808].

  • 42.

    Kadravello A, Tan SB, Ho GF, Kaur R, Yip CH. Exploring Unmet Needs from an Online Metastatic Breast Cancer Support Group: A Qualitative Study. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57(7). doi: 10.3390/medicina57070693. [PubMed: 34356974]. [PubMed Central: PMC8305467].

Copyright © 2022, Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.