17
The need to build on recent progress
- The policy and planning domain is negatively
correlated with the M:I ratio. This means that
the more advanced countries in policy and
institutional aspects are also those where
health system outcomes are relatively
better and vice versa. - There is no clear association between
total healthcare spending (out of GDP) and
overall scores. Similarly, there is no clear
relationship between the income level of the
country and the overall score. For example,
the top two ranked countries, Brazil and
Colombia (upper-middle-income), are in a
lower income level than Uruguay and Chile
(high-income). That said, Bolivia, the only
lower-middle-income country in the group,
is at the bottom of the ICP too.
What has changed in recent years?
In 2017 The Economist Intelligence Unit
published the Latin America Cancer Control
Scorecard, a first attempt at comparing
cancer preparedness in the 12 countries, with
a focus on policies reducing inequality.^31 The
methodology of this new study is not directly
comparable. However, two movements can be
identified when looking at compatible areas
of analysis. One is Argentina’s jump on the
dimension of cancer planning, driven by its
new national cancer plan, and the second is
Bolivia’s improvement in access to treatment
with the recent introduction of Sistema
Único de Salud, which pledges the gradual
attainment of free and universal healthcare
through public health institutions.^32
Chart 2: Correlation between the M:I ratio and ICP score
Source: Cancer Today 2018, EIU calculations.
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.0 10 .0 20 .0 30 .0 40 .0 50 .0 60 .0 70 .0 80 .0 (^90).
Mortali
ty to incidenc
e r
atio
Overall score
Bolivia
Paraguay
Ecuador
Panama
Mexico
Peru
Costa Rica
Uruguay
Colombia
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Paraguay
(^31) The Economist Intelligence Unit, Cancer control, access and inequality in Latin America: A tale of light and shadow, 2017.
(^32) Ministerio de Salud, Sistema Único de Salud - Preguntas Frecuentes, 2019.