Cancer Care: Assuring Quality to Improve Survival surveys the policy trends in cancer care over recent years and looks at survival rates to identify the why some countries are doing better than others.

More than five million new cases of cancer are diagnosed every year in OECD countries. Mortality rates are declining, but not as fast as for other big killers such as heart disease, and cancer survival rates show almost a four-fold difference across countries. In short, many countries are not doing as well as they could in the fight against cancer. Cancer Care: Assuring Quality to Improve Survival surveys the policy trends in cancer care over recent years and looks at survival rates to identify the why some countries are doing better than others. It sets out what governments should do to reduce the burden of cancer in their countries. As well as an adequate level of resourcing, a comprehensive national cancer control plan appears critical, emphasising initiatives such as early detection and fast-track treatment pathways. Countries also need better data, particularly for patients' experiences of care, in order to provide high quality, continuously improving cancer care.

Are breast cancer survival rates higher in the United States than in the United Kingdom and France? Are a patient's chances of dying within 30 days after admission to a hospital with a heart attack lower in Canada than in Korea? Are surgeons in some countries more likely to leave "foreign bodies" behind after operations or make accidental punctures or lacerations rates when performing surgery? The need for answers to these kinds of questions and the value of measuring the quality of health care are among the issues addressed in this publication. Many health policies depend on our ability to measure the quality of care accurately. Governments want to increase "patient-centeredness", improve co-ordination of care, and pay providers of high-quality care more than those who underperform. However, measuring the quality of health care is challenging. The OECD’s Health Care Quality Indicator project has overcome some of the problems, though many remain. If policy makers are serious about improving the body of evidence on the quality of care, they need to improve their health information systems. This publication describes what international comparable quality measures are currently available and how to link these measures to quality policies such as accreditation, practice guidelines, pay-for-performance, national safety programmes and quality reporting.

This publication describes what international comparable quality measures are currently available and how to link these measures to quality policies such as accreditation, practice guidelines, pay-for-performance, national safety programmes and quality reporting.

Are breast cancer survival rates higher in the United States than in the United Kingdom and France? Are a patient's chances of dying within 30 days after admission to a hospital with a heart attack lower in Canada than in Korea? Are surgeons in some countries more likely to leave "foreign bodies" behind after operations or make accidental punctures or lacerations rates when performing surgery? The need for answers to these kinds of questions and the value of measuring the quality of health care are among the issues addressed in this publication. Many health policies depend on our ability to measure the quality of care accurately. Governments want to increase "patient-centeredness", improve co-ordination of care, and pay providers of high-quality care more than those who underperform. However, measuring the quality of health care is challenging. The OECD's Health Care Quality Indicator project has overcome some of the problems, though many remain. If policy makers are serious about improving the body of evidence on the quality of care, they need to improve their health information systems. This publication describes what international comparable quality measures are currently available and how to link these measures to quality policies such as accreditation, practice guidelines, pay-for-performance, national safety programmes and quality reporting.

This report examines how countries perform in their ability to prevent, manage and treat cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes.

This review aims to support Latvia in continuing reform of its health system, informed by international best practice.

The report reviews a range of policies that countries have used to tackle waiting times for different services, including elective surgery and primary care consultations, but also cancer care and mental health services, with a focus on identifying the most successful ones.

Latin American countries were hard hit by COVID-19 with rates of excess mortality above the OECD average. The pandemic brought additional stress to health systems already overstretched by a growing burden of chronic diseases, unequal access to health care services, overall under-investment in health and strong budgetary restrictions, and systemic inefficiencies.

This document presents the OECD’s renewed health system performance assessment framework. It incorporates new performance dimensions, notably people-centredness, resilience, and environmental sustainability, and places increased emphasis on addressing inequalities, including those related to gender.