e18606 Background: At least half of people with cancer experience financial toxicity1 but financial advocacy has emerged as a promising intervention to mitigate it. How cancer programs and practices screen for financial toxicity among patients and the types of services they offer vary greatly. Standardization is needed to evaluate the outcomes and impacts of financial advocacy. Therefore, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Financial Advocacy Network set out to develop Oncology Financial Advocacy Services Guidelines (hereafter “the Guidelines”) to address this gap. Methods: To conduct this original, non-clinical trial research, ACCC convened a task force of seven multidisciplinary experts in financial advocacy to oversee a modified Delphi study. The task force assembled a panel of 49 experts, who represented oncology financial advocacy staff, multidisciplinary cancer care team members, financial advocacy subject matter experts, as well as patients and patient advocates. Based on a literature review and qualitative input from panelists, the task force drafted a list of 44 potential guidelines. In early 2022, panelists completed two rounds of anonymous voting, determining if each statement should not be a guideline, be a minimum guideline, or be an enhanced guideline. Consensus was set at 75% agreement. Results: The panel reached consensus that 43 statements should be guidelines. One guideline was rated minimum, while another 17 trended toward being considered minimum (60%-74% agreement among panelists). The panel rated one guideline as enhanced, with two others trending toward being enhanced. Twenty-two guidelines did not reach consensus one way or another on being minimal vs. enhanced. Conclusions: The Guidelines are publicly available in a report that includes implementation considerations extracted from Delphi panelists’ comments and task force input. Half of guidelines did not reach consensus on whether they are minimum or enhanced, reflecting the diversity of current financial advocacy practice and a need to develop greater standardization in the field. ACCC is taking several next steps to advance research and quality practice using the Guidelines, including collaborative policy development, assessment tools, and the creation of valid metrics and accountability measures.

171 Background: In 2018, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) developed the Financial Advocacy Services Guidelines to support cancer programs and practices with proactively addressing patients’ financial concerns along the cancer care continuum. Since then, research on financial hardship has expanded and the field of financial advocacy has continued to grow and evolve, necessitating new guidelines. Methods: To assess the current landscape of cancer financial advocacy interventions, ACCC conducted a literature scan of articles published between 2016 and 2021 using key words including financial advocacy, navigation, toxicity, oncology, and cancer. In May 2022, ACCC convened a multidisciplinary group of 49 national experts to begin developing new guidelines through a consensus-based Delphi process. To identify changes and additions to the 2018 guidelines, the panel completed a brief qualitative survey that asked which services are most important to include as a part of financial advocacy programs and necessary resources for effective delivery. Responses were compiled in a document and grouped by similarity using a rapid qualitative analysis approach. Results: The literature scan yielded a total of 55 articles. Several key recommendations emerged including the need to further integrate financial advocacy into care planning services, more training across team members to address financial toxicity, and ensuring services are accessible and equitable. Additional areas for research were ways to leverage technology to enhance services, when and how to screen for financial distress, and the development of care models. From the survey, responses clustered in the following domains and sub-domains: Financial Advocacy Services and Functions (Benefits Verification, Pre-Authorization, & Insurance Optimization; Financial Distress Screening; Patient Communication & Education; Financial Assistance); Program Management Functions (Staffing/Roles & Responsibilities, Staff Training, Infrastructure & Information Exchange, Monitoring & Evaluation); and Stakeholder Management Functions. Conclusions: Early input from the panel illuminated numerous areas for defining new guidelines to increase comprehensiveness, incorporate an explicit focus on health equity, and begin to tease out minimal and optimal services and program components and structure. The information from the literature scan and survey are being used by ACCC and a guidelines task force of field experts to draft new financial advocacy services guidelines, which will then go through at least two rounds of rating by the Delphi panel in order to find areas of consensus. ACCC will also hold a series of roundtables with patient advocacy, commercial, and pharmaceutical stakeholders to allow an opportunity to comment on the guidelines as well. The finalized guidelines are expected to be released before June 2023.

e18706 Background: Gaps in guideline-concordant cancer biomarker testing exist in real-world clinical practice. Medically underserved populations, in particular, face significant challenges to accessing the latest advances in cancer diagnostics. As community cancer programs work to expand their approach to precision medicine, some have created a precision medicine “steward” who acts as a point person for removing barriers to biomarker testing. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) explored the clinical utility, impact, and feasibility of having a precision medicine steward on the multidisciplinary cancer care team. Methods: ACCC held a series of focus groups and interviews with a diverse group of stakeholders to explore how cancer programs had justified, hired, trained, and utilized precision medicine stewards to improve guideline-concordant biomarker testing rates. ACCC examined select job descriptions, learned how stewards helped improve biomarker testing processes, and developed a framework for how a steward can fit into cancer care teams’ clinical and operational workflows. Results: Precision cancer medicine stewards can help improve biomarker test ordering processes. In one member program, turnaround time from test ordering to receipt of results decreased from an average of 24 days to 12 days and the quantity non-sufficient rate of testing decreased by five percent. Stewards also helped to improve the digitization of test orders, streamline prior authorizations, track tissue specimens, and notify oncologists when quantity of tissue was not adequate for testing. Stewards contributed to precision medicine workgroups that vetted reference laboratories, tracked key performance indicators around biomarker testing, and prioritized opportunities to reduce testing disparities. ACCC also collated examples of job titles, job descriptions, and role responsibilities of precision medicine stewards to share across member programs and practices. Conclusions: Guideline-concordant biomarker testing requires multiple complex steps and careful care coordination. Precision cancer medicine stewards have been shown to improve testing-related processes, decrease the time from ordering to receipt of results, and assist with prior authorizations. ACCC will work to further highlight their contributions on the multidisciplinary cancer care team and document more evidence of their return on investment for cancer programs and practices.