Cancer deaths and tax rates linked in surprising new study: Here's how

close

Video

'My dog detected my cancer before doctors did'

Breanna Bortner’s dog, Mochi, began fixating on her breast before she was diagnosed with stage 2B triple-negative breast cancer, showing unusual and intuitive behavior throughout her journey.

People who pay more in taxes could be less likely to die from cancer.

The link was revealed in a new study published in JAMA Network Open, which aimed to explore how state-level tax revenue impacts cancer screenings and mortality in the U.S.

Researchers from The Ohio State University, Emory University in Georgia and the University of Verona in Italy analyzed 1,150 state-years of tax data over a 23-year period, between 1997 and 2019. (A state-year refers to one year of data from one state.)

NEW PROSTATE CANCER TEST PINPOINTS DISEASE BETTER THAN PSA OPTION, STUDY FINDS

They also reviewed population-level cancer screening rates and cancer-related deaths from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) databases.

People who pay more in taxes could be less likely to die from cancer, according to a new study published in JAMA Network Open. (iStock)

The states with higher tax income were found to have increased cancer screening rates and decreased cancer mortality rates, the researchers found.

For each $1,000 increase in tax revenue per capita, the population had a 1.61% increase in colorectal cancer screening, a 2.17% increase in breast cancer screening and a 0.72% increase in cervical cancer screening rate, the research showed. 

ALTERNATIVE CANCER TREATMENT COULD REPLACE CHEMO AND SURGERY, STUDY SUGGESTS

Among those who had cancerous tumors, each $1,000 increase in tax revenue per capita was linked to up to 4% decreased death rates among White patients. The same reduced risk was not found for racial and ethnic minority populations, according to the study.

"State-level tax policy is an underappreciated social determinant of health that may improve cancer screening and mortality rates," the researchers wrote.

The researchers reviewed population-level cancer screening rates and cancer-related deaths from CDC databases. (iStock)

"These findings suggest that state-level tax revenue may serve as one aspect of a multifaceted approach to improve cancer-related outcomes in the U.S. and help bridge cancer care gaps, particularly in more progressive tax policy settings."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Prior studies have identified tax policy as a predictor of public health, particularly for infant mortality risk and overall healthcare outcomes.

"One possible association could be that the higher your taxes, the more money you would have to buy healthier food and more luxury for relaxation and exercise."

"Tax revenue may serve as funding that promotes the common good by ensuring access to safe, healthy environments and quality healthcare, while progressive taxes can substantially increase the disposable income of working-class households, thus enhancing their living standards and improving their health and cancer outcomes," the study stated.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

Dr. Marc Siegel, clinical professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health and Fox News senior medical analyst, shared his external reaction to the study.

"One possible association could be that the higher your taxes, the more money you would have to buy healthier food and more luxury for relaxation and exercise," he told Fox News Digital. 

"Having more money to pay for extra treatment, earlier diagnosis and better care can also help prevent cancer death." (iStock)

"Having more money to pay for extra treatment, earlier diagnosis and better care can also help prevent cancer death."

The study did have some limitations, the researchers acknowledged — chiefly that the results show an association but do not prove that the high tax rates caused the decreased mortality. 

For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health

Cancer screening rates were also based on patient questionnaires, which could have some level of bias.

There is also the possibility of measurement errors in the data, the researchers cautioned.