These are separate studies about specific cancers, and interesting. But the biggest point in the study I remember reading was that it mixed up all the "not eas

These are separate studies about specific cancers, and interesting. But the biggest point in the study I remember reading was that it mixed up all the "not easy to treat [1]" cancers together, pondering each cost and survival time with the cancer incidence. It gave a better picture of the "less known" cancers - which is addressing the real question with universal healthcare. I mean, if overall the expansive cancer or deadly cancers are rare they we can afford them - but they weren't, and overall outside specific case, even if one tried the best healthcare, it was not a very efficient outcome. I'll love to find it back - that or a study sharing the methodology. IIRC it was in USD. [1] : by easy to treat I mean cancer which is very unlikely to reoccur if properly treated, for which one or more therapies are known to be effective, with costs and morbidity well known - like skin cancer.