GENEVA – Ensuring that universal health coverage (UHC) protects cancer patients and tackling commercial interests driving cancer were two issues in the spotlight of the World Cancer Congress.

Speakers stressed that they need to make their mark at the United Nations (UN) High-Level Meeting (HLM) on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in 2025, ensuring a bold rethinking of how healthcare is financed and protected from commercial interests.

The HLM will adopt a political declaration that will determine how NCDs including cancer are addressed to 2030, according to the WHO.

Speakers addressing the plenary called for the intersection of money, politics, and public health commitments to be addressed. 

Universal Health Coverage

“Universal health coverage (UHC) is not just a health goal; it’s a political strategy that leaders can rally behind,” said Robert Yates from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. 

UHC aims to ensure that everyone can access essential health services without facing financial ruin and for cancer patients, often burdened by exorbitant treatment costs, this is not just a lofty ideal but a lifeline, Yates explained.

“There is no other way of financing this other than through a predominantly publicly financed health system,” Yates stressed. 

“If we’re serious about UHC, we have to be serious about increasing levels of domestic public financing and making sure that resources are allocated as efficiently and equitably as possible.” 

He urged advocates to focus their efforts on high-level policymakers, particularly ministers of finance and heads of government, to secure the necessary funds.

Cancer care, Yates argued, is central to the UHC agenda, from preventive measures like the HPV vaccine to advanced treatments. 

He pointed to the cost-effectiveness of many cancer interventions as a compelling argument for public investment, citing examples like the inexpensive HPV vaccine that can prevent cervical cancer. “We need to sell the broader benefits of investing in cancer care, including the economic advantages,” Yates said. “It’s about convincing politicians that this is what their populations want – and it’s politically popular.”

The economic impact of cancer and other NCDs extends far beyond individual patients, straining healthcare systems worldwide. 

Bente Mikkelsen,  the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Director of NCDs, said that only 28% of countries have integrated cancer care into their UHC plans. The consequence? Many patients face catastrophic out-of-pocket expenses, plunging families into poverty.

“We have to stop relying solely on international funding and look at sustainable domestic financing,” Mikkelsen urged. 

“Unless cancer is part of the UHC agenda, we will continue to see out-of-pocket payments driving people into poverty.” She emphasized that the link between poverty and NCDs forms a vicious cycle, as low-income individuals are more likely to suffer from these diseases and less able to afford treatment.

‘Voluntary actions don’t work’

Another significant barrier to addressing NCDs is the influence of commercial interests, highlighted Anna Gilmore, Co-Director of the Centre for 21st Century Public Health at the University of Bath

“What’s causing disease and killing us is increasingly the products of commercial organisations – tobacco, alcohol, ultra-processed foods,” Gilmore said. “And the greatest barrier to preventing disease is the practices of those same corporations.”

Gilmore pointed to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control’s Article 5.3 as a model for protecting public health policies from harmful corporate influences. Article 5.3 specifically requires governments to protect their public health policies from the commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry. 

It recognizes the fundamental conflict between public health and the tobacco industry’s profit motives, and it sets out guidelines to limit interactions with the industry, ensure transparency, and prevent conflicts of interest.

“The tobacco industry has a long history of trying to undermine public health efforts through lobbying, funding misleading research, and positioning itself as a partner in health initiatives,” Gilmore explained. 

“Article 5.3 is a critical tool in countering these tactics, as it explicitly calls for excluding the tobacco industry from policy-making processes and ensuring that their influence does not interfere with public health objectives.”

The guidelines under Article 5.3 recommend that governments avoid any partnership or interaction with the tobacco industry unless strictly necessary and ensure that any such interactions are transparent and accountable​. This model is cited as an effective way to protect public health from the influence of industries that profit from products harmful to health.

Fabio Gomes, Regional Advisor at the Pan-American Health Organization, echoed these concerns, highlighting how Latin American countries have started regulating harmful products and practices. 

“Countries have realized that we cannot move forward without regulating the products that are killing us,” he said, pointing to successful policies like warning labels on unhealthy foods and restrictions on marketing aimed at children. 

The regulation of these products is seen as essential to protect public health from the influence of powerful commercial interests that prioritize profit over people’s well-being.

The panellists stressed that confronting commercial interests is critical in the broader fight against NCDs. They noted that implementing measures similar to Article 5.3 for alcohol, sugary drinks, and ultra-processed foods manufacturers, could significantly advance public health protections. 

Gilmore highlighted how corporations often resist regulations that could prevent millions of deaths annually, such as taxes on tobacco or restrictions on unhealthy food marketing. She believes that regulations are vital in reducing the influence of industries that stand in the way of effective NCD prevention strategies. 

“Voluntary actions don’t work, regulation will always be essential,” she said.

A political battle for health

While calling for increased public financing and highlighting the need for high-level political advocacy to ensure cancer care becomes a priority within health agendas worldwide, Yates and others highlighted the need for the key players to be confident in directly reaching out to politicians such US Vice Presidential candidate Tim Waltz, who had personal experience of how financially devastating cancer can be on a family.

“We need to get political,” Yates stated. He urged cancer advocates to directly engage with ministers of finance and heads of government to secure funding for cancer services. He argued that integrating cancer care into UHC could drive broader political support, given its strong public appeal and the significant economic benefits associated with early intervention and prevention.

With the United Nations High-Level Meeting on NCDs approaching in 2025, the panellists emphasised the need to secure commitments from political leaders to increase funding and regulatory measures that could significantly impact global health outcomes.

Preserving cancer research integrity

One of the Congress panels addressed fraud in cancer research. Fraudulent science, including data manipulation, plagiarism, and paper mills, have been a persistent problems, particularly exacerbated by the influx of ‘fake’ papers post-COVID-19. 

Christoph Plass, Division Head at the International Journal of Cancer, highlighted the troubling trend of cell line misidentification in cancer research, which leads to inaccurate research findings. 

He emphasized the need for cell line authentication and research resource identifiers (RRIDs) to ensure the reliability of the data presented. His team found that many rejected manuscripts for cell line issues were published elsewhere without corrections—a practice that threatens the credibility of published research.

Julie Stacey, Editor-in-Chief of eBioMedicine, said that smaller journals often lack the resources for thorough peer review and investigative rigour, leading to the publication of flawed or fraudulent research. Larger journals have better systems in place but are not immune to these problems, often relying on whistleblowers to identify misconduct.

Sonali Johnson, from the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), underscored how fraudulent research erodes public trust in science and medical research, making it harder to advocate for cancer control initiatives. 

Misinformation is especially harmful in cancer research, where public understanding is already limited. Fraudulent findings can lead to patients pursuing ineffective treatments, delaying necessary care, and wasting valuable resources. Johnson also pointed out that commercial interests from industries such as tobacco and fossil fuels manipulate science to promote their products, often creating confusion and mistrust about cancer-related risks.

The panellists agreed on the need for stricter editorial policies, transparency in research funding, and a stronger focus on ethical education for junior and senior researchers alike. The session emphasized that journals must take responsibility for maintaining the highest standards of research integrity, while funding bodies and institutions need to enforce stricter compliance measures to avoid the pitfalls of fraudulent science.

The session concluded with a call to action for the cancer research community to adopt more rigorous authentication processes, promote open science initiatives, and foster a culture of accountability.