For years, the case for Exercise Oncology has been built primarily on clinical evidence. Structured exercise can improve physical function, strength, fatigue, independence, and other important outcomes for people living with and beyond cancer.
Now there is another compelling argument: economics.
A major 2026 economic analysis from Deloitte Access Economics in Australia found that, in cancer care, every $1 invested in exercise physiology produced approximately $3 in economic benefit. Among the six health-condition groups studied, cancer generated the highest return on investment.
For hospitals, cancer centers, healthcare systems, insurers, employers, and policymakers considering whether to establish or expand Exercise Oncology Programs, this finding deserves attention.
Putting a Dollar Value on Exercise
The Deloitte Access Economics report, Valuing the contribution of Exercise Physiologists in Australia: An economic perspective, was commissioned by Exercise & Sports Science Australia and evaluated Accredited Exercise Physiologists across cardiovascular, pulmonary, musculoskeletal, mental health, physical disability, and cancer populations.
Across all six conditions, exercise physiology produced a benefit-cost ratio of 2.5, representing $2.50 in benefits for every dollar invested. The analysis estimated $1.09 billion in net economic benefits over three years, with benefits coming from both healthcare savings and increased workforce productivity.
Cancer performed even better.
The cancer population produced a 3.0 benefit-cost ratio and approximately $2,609 in net benefit per patient. Among just 22,757 cancer patients receiving exercise physiology services, the estimated three-year net benefit was $59.4 million.
Fewer Hospitalizations and Healthcare Visits
One of the most important findings was the potential reduction in healthcare utilization.
The analysis estimated $58 million in health-system savings associated with cancer care, including:
- 9,353 avoided hospitalizations
- 5,060 avoided emergency department presentations
- 13,165 avoided specialist visits
- 23,384 avoided general practitioner visits
The economic model was supported by evidence showing an average 42% hospitalization-diversion rate among cancer patients receiving exercise-based interventions compared with controls.
These numbers reinforce an important concept: Exercise Oncology should not be viewed simply as an optional wellness service. Properly organized exercise programs may influence healthcare utilization as well as patient health.
The Opportunity Is Much Larger
Perhaps equally striking is how few eligible patients currently receive these services.
According to the report, only about 4% of the prevalent cancer population examined received exercise physiology care—22,757 of approximately 571,600 people. Deloitte estimated that treating every additional 1,000 patients could generate approximately $2 million in net economic benefit, while each additional exercise physiologist could contribute roughly $476,654 in annual value.
This represents an enormous opportunity for cancer centers and healthcare organizations.
What This Means for Building Exercise Oncology Programs
The economic findings support a model in which Exercise Oncology is integrated throughout the cancer-care continuum, from diagnosis through active treatment and into survivorship.
The report specifically recommends embedding exercise physiology into coordinated healthcare pathways rather than relying on isolated or one-time referrals.
Exercise Oncology Programs should therefore be designed as organized clinical services, with appropriate assessment, individualized exercise prescriptions, qualified exercise professionals, outcome measurement, and communication with the oncology team.
Programs should also measure more than physical fitness. Healthcare utilization, treatment interruptions, return to work, absenteeism, functional independence, and other economic outcomes may be critical when demonstrating value to administrators, insurers, employers, and policymakers.
Importantly, the report also identifies an evidence gap. The cancer economic model relied on research involving exercise interventions generally rather than exclusively exercise-physiologist-delivered programs. This makes systematic collection of clinical and economic outcomes within Exercise Oncology Programs especially important.
From “Is Exercise Beneficial?” to “How Do We Implement It?”
Exercise Oncology has reached an important stage in its development.
The conversation is increasingly moving beyond whether exercise benefits cancer patients toward how healthcare systems can organize, fund, deliver, and scale exercise as part of routine cancer care.
Economic evidence can be particularly powerful because the people making decisions about new programs must consider not only clinical outcomes but also staffing, budgets, healthcare utilization, reimbursement, and return on investment.
This report provides a new language for those discussions.
There is an important limitation: these figures come from Australia and reflect Australian healthcare and funding systems. They therefore should not automatically be assumed to represent the economics of Exercise Oncology in the United States or other countries.
Nevertheless, the larger message is difficult to ignore.
Exercise Oncology may simultaneously improve patient outcomes, reduce healthcare utilization, preserve function and productivity, and generate economic value. In this analysis, cancer produced the highest economic return of all six conditions studied.
The CancerFitness.org Perspective
At CancerFitness.org, we believe Exercise Oncology should become an integrated component of modern cancer care, not an afterthought offered only after treatment is completed.
The economic argument strengthens the clinical argument. Cancer programs should begin asking not simply, “Can we afford to establish an Exercise Oncology Program?” but also:
“Can we afford not to?”
Call to Action
Cancer centers, oncology practices, health systems, insurers, and policymakers should begin evaluating how professionally supervised exercise can be incorporated into routine cancer-care pathways.
At the same time, existing Exercise Oncology Programs should systematically document their clinical outcomes, healthcare utilization, workforce participation, and costs. Building this real-world evidence will be essential for demonstrating the value of Exercise Oncology within different healthcare systems.
Exercise is more than supportive care. The emerging evidence suggests it can be an investment in better health, greater independence, more efficient healthcare, and better cancer care.
Reference: Deloitte Access Economics. “Valuing the contribution of Exercise Physiologists in Australia: An economic perspective.” Commissioned by Exercise & Sports Science Australia (ESSA), August 2026.
