AccessHope Research
The 2026 Cancer Benefits Report

HR leaders say cancer is among their top costs.
Most still can't see what they're spending on it.

A study of 130 HR and benefits decision-makers reveals a widening gap between what employers prioritize, what they believe, and what they've actually built.

Respondents130
FieldedMay–June 2026
AudienceHR & Benefits Leaders
Org Sizes500 to 50,000+ employees

Six in ten HR and benefits leaders say cancer is one of their top three cost drivers. Nearly three-quarters strongly agree that early expert intervention improves outcomes and reduces downstream costs. Yet more than a third still have meaningful blind spots in their cancer spend data, and roughly half of organizations whose top priority is improving outcomes don't currently offer an expert second opinion benefit.

That pattern intensifies at scale. The largest employers in this study carry the strongest convictions about expert care and the most formal strategies on paper, but they also report the lowest spend visibility and the lowest rates of expert second opinion programs in place.

The story underneath these numbers is about employers reaching faster than their infrastructure can keep up, not employers falling short of their employees.

62%
Say cancer is the #1 or top-3 cost driver in their organization's healthcare spend
94%
Agree that early expert intervention can meaningfully improve cancer outcomes and reduce costs
37%
Still have data gaps or limited visibility into what their organization spends on cancer
Finding One

Cancer is a top spend category. Visibility hasn't caught up.

When asked where cancer ranks in their organization's healthcare costs, more than six in ten leaders place it in their top three. Yet only 63% say they have clear data on what their organization actually spends. The rest are operating with gaps, limited visibility, or no tracking at all on a category they've identified as one of the highest-cost areas they manage.

Q: Thinking about your organization's healthcare spend overall, where does cancer rank as a cost driver?
Where Cancer Ranks in Healthcare Spend
Q: When it comes to cancer-related spend at your organization, how clear a picture do you have?
Visibility Into Cancer-Related Spend

"Our biggest gap is earlier identification and faster routing. If we can catch cases sooner and guide people to the right care immediately, everything downstream gets better."

— Director of Benefits, Healthcare
What This Means

Employers are flying instruments-light on their highest-stakes claims.

Cancer commands a disproportionate share of catastrophic claims, yet more than a third of organizations can't measure that exposure with the same precision they apply to lower-cost categories. The visibility gap stems from tooling and integration constraints rather than a lack of will, often rooted in fragmented carrier data and lagging claims feeds.

Finding Two

Belief in early expert care is near-universal. The infrastructure to deliver it isn't.

Ninety-four percent of HR and benefits leaders agree that early expert intervention can meaningfully improve outcomes and reduce downstream costs. Seventy-two percent strongly agree. Yet only half currently offer an expert second opinion or expert review program. Among the leaders who name improving clinical outcomes as their top priority for the next 12 to 18 months, more than half don't yet have an expert review benefit in place.

Q: To what extent do you agree: "Early expert intervention can meaningfully improve cancer outcomes and reduce downstream costs"?
Belief in Early Expert Intervention
Q: Which cancer-specific resources do you currently offer your employees, beyond standard medical coverage? (Select all that apply)
Cancer Resources Currently Offered

"It's mainly shaped by claims experience and real high-cost case reviews. Earlier access to high-quality care often improves outcomes and reduces total long-term costs."

— VP of People, Manufacturing
What This Means

The conviction is there. The capability lags.

Almost every leader in the dataset believes that getting employees to oncology expertise faster improves clinical and financial outcomes. The bottleneck is converting that conviction into an actual benefit on the plan. Among the organizations that name outcomes as their top priority, this gap is widest. These are the buyers most likely to act in the next 12 to 18 months.

Finding Three

Large employers are quietly consolidating. The shift to integrated cancer strategies is on.

Among large and enterprise employers (2,500+ employees), 56% have either built an integrated cancer care strategy or are actively working to consolidate point solutions into one. Only 30% say they're satisfied with a multi-point-solution approach. The drivers, in respondents' own words, are fragmentation, employee experience friction, and the vendor-management overhead of stitching a dozen disconnected programs together.

Q: When you think about your cancer benefits stack, which best describes where your organization is today? (Large & Enterprise employers, 2,500+ employees, n=96)
Cancer Benefits Architecture at Large+ Employers
Q: Looking at the next 12–18 months, what's your single top priority for cancer benefits?
Top Priority, Next 12–18 Months
Q: Does your organization have a dedicated cancer strategy — a clear, intentional approach to cancer benefits as a category?
Dedicated Cancer Strategy Maturity

"I'd eliminate the data silos between our primary health carrier and our independent point solutions, to enable an automated trigger the moment a cancer diagnosis code is entered. That would instantly bypass administrative delays and connect the patient with specialized navigation."

— Head of Benefits, Financial Services
What This Means

The strategic conversation has moved past "do we offer cancer benefits" to "is the experience integrated."

Employer experience is becoming the deciding factor, not catalog breadth. Leaders who chose "improving employee experience and navigation" as their top priority (36%, the largest single bucket) outnumbered those focused on cost reduction nearly three to one. The center of gravity is shifting toward connected, coordinated cancer care, with a single guided pathway from diagnosis to survivorship.

Finding Four

The enterprise paradox. The biggest employers have the most infrastructure and the widest gaps.

The 54 enterprise employers in this study (10,000+ employees) collectively represent more than 1.3 million covered lives. They have the most mature cancer benefits programs in the dataset: 74% have a formal, documented cancer strategy, a higher rate than any other segment. They also hold the strongest convictions about expert care, with 80% strongly agreeing that early expert intervention improves outcomes. Yet enterprise employers report the lowest visibility into their cancer spend, and they are less likely than mid-market peers to offer an expert second opinion benefit. Scale brings sophistication. It also brings fragmentation.

Q: Which best describes your organization's strategy and visibility on cancer benefits? (% within each size band)
Strategy & Conviction Rise with Size
Q: Visibility into cancer spend, and expert review program offered today (% within each size band)
Visibility & Expert Care Don't Scale With It
Q: Looking at the next 12–18 months, what's your single top priority for cancer benefits? (% within each size band, top priorities shown)
Top Priorities Diverge by Size

"Currently, the health carrier handles chemo, a TPA handles FMLA leave, a PBM handles the drugs, and an EAP handles mental health. The employee is stuck acting as their own project manager. We need to unify these islands into a single, cohesive experience."

— Director of Benefits, Enterprise Retail (28,000 employees)

"We've realized that the cost problem is actually a symptom of a broken employee experience. When a frontline worker gets diagnosed, they don't know where to turn, so they default to the nearest emergency room or the first local clinic that has an opening."

— Head of People, Enterprise Manufacturing
What This Means

Enterprise employers are over-built on programs and under-served on integration.

Eight in ten enterprise leaders strongly believe early expert intervention improves outcomes, the highest conviction of any segment. Yet fewer than half offer an expert second opinion benefit today, and nearly half operate with data gaps on a cost category they've already identified as a top concern. When enterprise leaders describe what's driving them toward integration, they use one word more than any other: experience. The next wave of enterprise cancer benefits decisions will be made on how connected the journey feels for the employee, not how many vendors sit on the slide.

Where AccessHope Fits

Closing the gap between belief and capability.

AccessHope is an employee cancer care benefit that connects every diagnosis with the latest expertise from National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers. Subspecialist case reviews, treatment plan validation, and ongoing case support sit alongside the plan you already have, without asking employees to switch doctors or leave home.

For employers seeking to move from belief in early expert care to actually delivering it, AccessHope is the bridge.

Fighting cancer with everything we know.™

Talk with Our Team Download the Full Report
Methodology

About this research

AccessHope fielded an online conversational survey of HR and benefits decision-makers between May and June 2026. Respondents were senior leaders with direct ownership or influence over cancer benefits strategy at organizations with 500 or more employees. Quotas were applied across organization size to support segmentation. All percentages are calculated against the full respondent base unless otherwise noted. The 130 organizations in the study collectively represent more than 1.6 million covered lives, with enterprise employers (10,000+ employees) accounting for the majority of that population.

130
Total respondents
500+
Employees per org
9
Industries represented
May–Jun
Fielding window, 2026
Organization size of respondents

Respondent Organization Size

Industry mix of respondents

Industries Represented

All percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number using a largest-remainder method, so pie and doughnut chart totals sum to exactly 100%. Multi-select questions (cancer resources offered) reflect the percentage of respondents who selected each option and therefore exceed 100% when summed. Open-ended responses were classified into a unified set of buckets across the entire respondent base. Quotes have been lightly edited for length and clarity. Organization size data is sourced from PureSpectrum panel B2B profiling.

© 2026 AccessHope, LLC. All rights reserved.
0