Access to care remains a persistent challenge for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. We review key findings in the science to date. (1) Location of care matters. There is survival benefit for AYAs treated either at a pediatric center or site with special status (eg, Children's Oncology Group, National Cancer Institute [NCI]–designated Comprehensive Cancer Center). (2) Socioeconomic status and insurance require further investigation. Medicaid expansion has had a moderate effect on AYA outcomes. The dependent care expansion benefit has come largely from improvements in coverage for younger populations whose parents have insurance, while some subgroups likely still face insurance gaps. (3) Clinical trial enrollment remains poor, but access may be improving. Numerous barriers and facilitators of clinical trial enrollment include those that are system level and patient level. NCI has established several initiatives over the past decade to improve enrollment, and newer collaboratives have recently brought together multidisciplinary US teams to increase clinical trial enrollment. (4) Effective AYA programs require provider and system flexibility and program reflection. With flexibility comes a need for metrics to assess program effectiveness in the context of the program model. Centers treating AYAs with cancer could submit a subset of metrics (appropriate to their program and/or services) to maintain their status; persistence would require an entity with staying power committed to overseeing the metrics and the system. Substantial clinical and biological advances are anticipated over the next 20 years that will benefit all patients with cancer. In parallel, it is crucial to prioritize research regarding access to health care and cancer care delivery; only with equitable access to care for AYAs can they, too, benefit from these advances.

Health insurance education could mitigate financial toxicity experienced by young adult (YA) cancer survivors by increasing confidence when navigating cancer care costs. This paper describes the protocol in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test a virtual patient navigation program designed to help YA cancer survivors understand their health insurance. This is a two-arm, multi-site (Huntsman Cancer Institute, Intermountain Health) RCT wherein intervention participants receive four sessions with a patient navigator (PN) and a booklet on insurance; usual care receives the booklet. We will enroll 300 YA cancer survivors (n=200 intervention; n=100 usual care) diagnosed with breast, testicular, lymphoma, sarcoma, colorectal, melanoma, or thyroid cancer between the ages of 26 and 39, who have completed treatment in the past two years. All participants will complete three surveys: enrollment, 6 months, and 12 months; medical records/insurance claims data will be collected out to 18-month follow-up. Recruitment began in the fall of 2023 and is expected to last approximately 2.5 years. The primary efficacy outcomes include improvement in health insurance literacy and financial toxicity at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include adherence to cancer surveillance guidelines at 18 months. We will also conduct cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses. Anticipated results from this trial could identify key information that YA cancer survivors need to improve health insurance literacy and survivorship care.

We adapted CHAT, a four-session virtual program to help individuals affected by cancer manage insurance and medical costs for caregivers of pediatric cancer patients (called CHAT-C); we then pilot-tested CHAT-C. Eligible caregivers were ages 18+ and the primary caregiver to a pediatric cancer patient (≤25 years old) diagnosed in the past five years and treated at Primary Children’s Hospital. We conducted engagement studios to adapt the program. Feedback was evaluated using a rapid qualitative analysis framework and included content preferences, navigator preferences, logistics/structure, timing of delivery, and feasibility/acceptability. A small pilot test of CHAT-C was conducted; feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy were evaluated based on enrollment rates, qualitative feedback, and baseline/follow-up surveys. Participants in the pilot (n = 14) were primarily white (93%), married (93%), female (86%), ages 40–49 (50%), and college-educated (57%). Most participants (64%) completed all four sessions of CHAT-C. Those who did not complete the sessions cited a lack of time, a child’s disease progression, and a perceived lack of benefit. Health insurance literacy (measured by nine items) improved by 10.8 points on average (SD = 6.0, range: 9–36) after CHAT-C. Caregivers of childhood cancer patients are willing to participate in a health insurance program, but some caregivers need less time-intensive options.

218 Background: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; ages 18-39) with cancer report worries about costs and feeling uninformed about their insurance, which may impair their ability to navigate the health care system, use their insurance, and manage costs. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess a virtually delivered health insurance navigation intervention (“CHAT”) to improve health insurance literacy (HIL) and knowledge, increase awareness of insurance protections in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and reduce financial toxicity and stress. Methods: CHAT is a 4-session program delivered by a patient navigator. Session content included learning about insurance, navigating your plan, insurance-related laws, & managing care costs. Eligible participants had access to a wireless device, were within their first year of cancer diagnosis, and were treated at oncology sites from the University of Utah Healthcare and Intermountain Healthcare systems. We assessed feasibility and preliminary efficacy of CHAT compared to usual navigation care, including HIL (9 items on confidence using insurance), insurance knowledge (13 items on terms such as deductible & copay), ACA protections (8 items), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; 4 items), and COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST; 11 items) using t-tests. Results: From November 2020 to January 2022, 86 AYAs enrolled (46.2% approached consented); 68.6% were female, 72.1% white, 18.6% Hispanic, 34.9% age 18-25, 65.1% age 26-39, 83.7% had private insurance, and 10.5% public. Mean baseline HIL scores were 22.6 (range = 9-33, SD = 5.5). At baseline, 65.1% of participants were unaware of the ACA provision allowing appeals for coverage denials. 64.4% of intervention participants completed all 4 sessions; 86.0% completed the 5-month follow-up survey with data collection ongoing (74/86). At follow-up, compared to usual navigation care, CHAT participants had improvements in HIL, knowledge of insurance, and knowledge of ACA provisions (Table). While PSS improved more for CHAT than usual care, COST did not differ. Conclusions: Results support the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of CHAT with related improvements in HIL and knowledge of the ACA. Clinical trial information: NCT04448678. [Table: see text]