A cure for lung cancer may remain elusive until biases in healthcare are resolved. Accessibility, comprehensiveness, and quality of care are key cornerstones that a healthcare system must address in order to be equitable for all its citizens; unfortunately, this is not always the case in Canada. Many Canadian lung cancer patients face numerous biases in care, ranging from systemic issues, social determinants of health, clinical trials design. In Canada, lung cancer has become a postal code disease. For example, targeted therapy drug coverage varies widely across each province, such as crizotinib for ROS1 positive NSCLC received marketing authorization in August 2017. However in September 2020, it was only publicly reimbursed in four provinces (Lung Cancer Canada, 2020). Unfortunately, this equity in access is common across Canada where access to one treatment or test may be accessible in one province, but completely inaccessible in another. Stigma on lung cancer patients, structural racism on minorities and indigenous populations, and discrimination all feed the biases in the healthcare system, leading to delays in testing and treatment. Geographical concerns arise for those in remote areas, particularly Indigenous communities, as traveling long distances for care has financial and emotional implications. However, the biggest factor influencing equity is the association between lung cancer risk and socioeconomic status, where incidence rates of those in the lowest income quintile are 2.1 times higher than those in the highest quintile (Mitra, Shaw, Tjepkema, & Peters, 2015). Education is also a major factor, where lung cancer incidence is 2.8 times higher for those with less than a secondary school diploma compared to those with a university degree, and this plays a role in health literacy and their ability to understand medical terminology, utilize available educational resources, and advocate for potential treatment physicians may not be aware of (Mitra, Shaw, Tjepkema, & Peters, 2015). Clinical trials also impose implicit biases on accessibility, as trials are typically done in large city centers where higher incidence rates are found, and thus, greater opportunity to fill placements. Disadvantaged populations such as ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, those In jobs with limited flexibility, and rural residents are often underrepresented in such trials, and thus, they do not consider the patient’s perspective, leading to research that is inequitable. Significant systemic changes are needed to ensure underserved and underrepresented populations are able to access care for cancer prevention, treatment, and diagnosis. Within publicly funded healthcare systems, treatment costs are real concerns. However traditional assessments of value ignore costs such as time off work, travel to treatment. The value gained in non-traditional outcomes such as patient independence, mental wellness, and cultural preservation are real but difficult to capture. To preserve and further the medical gains in treatment advances, new assessments of value need to be developed, treatments planned with rollout and outreach in mind and clinical trials reflective of the real population they were designed to serve. Without these, a cure for lung cancer may be developed but remain unreachable for patients. Lung Cancer Canada. (2020). (rep.). The Faces of Lung Cancer Report. Retrieved from https://www.lungcancercanada.ca/LungCancerCanada/media/Documents/LCC2020_FOLCR_ENGLISH.pdf Mitra, D., Shaw, A., Tjepkema, M., & Peters, P. (2015). Social Determinants of Lung Cancer Incidence in Canada: A 13-year prospective study. Health Reports, 26(6), 12–20. Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2015006/article/14195-eng.htm