Most Crowdfunding Campaigns Fail to Meet Cancer Costs, New Study Shows

Crowdfunding has become a common lifeline for people facing crushing cancer bills. It feels like the only option when savings drain fast and treatment costs rise even faster. The problem is that the real numbers tell a tough story. Most campaigns bring in only a small slice of what patients need, and the gap between requests and reality keeps growing.

A new study from the American Cancer Society looked at more than 78,000 cancer-related GoFundMe pages. Researchers reviewed campaigns active from 2021 through 2023 and tracked how much people asked for compared to what they actually received. The findings are blunt. Cancer crowdfunding is helping, but nowhere near enough to cover the financial weight families carry.

SHK / Pexels / The ACS study found that cancer campaigns pulled in more than five hundred million dollars during the study period.

Patients had collectively asked for about one point four seven billion. That means campaigns reached just under 35% of what they needed. The median goal sat at ten thousand dollars. The median payout was only four thousand. Most families were left with more than half of their costs uncovered.

The success rate was even tougher to see. Only one in nine campaigns hit their goal within ninety days. That leaves the vast majority closing out with unmet needs and unpaid bills. Many families start with hope, share their stories, and reach out to friends, only to end up with numbers that barely scratch the surface. It is a pattern researchers say shows just how large the funding gap has become.

To put it all in context, even hundreds of millions raised through GoFundMe still cover less than five percent of the estimated annual out-of-pocket costs for all cancer patients in the United States.

The study makes it clear that private donations are not built to solve this problem. The financial burden of cancer reaches far beyond what community generosity can handle.

What Actually Helps a Campaign Succeed?

Researchers also looked at what influences fundraising results. They found that certain details about a patient can change how much support a page receives. Campaigns for younger patients or those described as male, married, working, or caring for kids tended to raise more. These traits shaped donor behavior even when medical needs were similar. It highlights a quiet bias that affects who gets help.

The type of cancer also made a difference. Pages for pancreatic, brain, or blood cancers drew more donations. These cancers often come with higher treatment costs and lower survival rates, which may prompt stronger emotional responses from donors. Campaigns that mentioned metastatic disease also tended to perform better.

When people sense urgency, they give more freely, even if others with less visible needs are struggling just as much.

Freepik / Campaigns with lower target goals, cleaner writing, and regular updates drew more engagement. Donors respond to clear storytelling and active pages.

Some analytical models showed that people give more when they understand the exact treatment, loss of income, or severity of symptoms. A page that tells a focused, heartfelt story can gain traction, though that does not erase the financial cliff many patients still face.

Dr. Jason Zheng of the ACS noted that while private donations may help individual patients, they cannot fix the underlying affordability crisis. The study highlights the need for stronger public health policies and more realistic coverage options. Cancer survivors should not depend on luck, popularity, or storytelling skills to pay for basic care.