Background: Financial toxicity (FT) is a well-documented negative side effect of cancer treatment. Routine screening can mitigate FT by proactively connecting at-risk patients to resources and counseling. Herein, we describe implementation of a FT screening quality improvement (QI) program. Methods: At a comprehensive cancer center, an interdisciplinary team explored options for implementation, with consideration for screening content, mechanism for delivery, and clinical workflow. Through consensus, the team agreed to use the 12-item COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool, a health-related social risk checklist, patient-self report of cost-related medication non-adherence, and a visual analog quality of life scale. Surveys were sent via portal every four months to patients on active treatment. The QI project was implemented on the breast, gastrointestinal, gynecologic, and thoracic services. COST scores ≤20 or any endorsed social risk (e.g., food, transportation) yielded a positive screen, and nurses placed a financial counseling referral, with counseling dispositions tracked. In March 2023, due to an influx of “unproductive” counseling dispositions (e.g., patient could not be contacted, patient no longer wanted help), machine learning models suggested reducing the screening threshold to COST scores ≤16 and limiting the social risk checklist to four items (food, transportation, medication, and housing insecurity). Results: From 06/2022-12/2023, 196,675 financial toxicity surveys were assigned to 78,289 unique patients: 38% (n=75,526) were completed by 45,003 patients. Of these, 56% have completed one survey, 26% have completed two surveys, and 18% have completed three or more. Since implementation, 9612 financial counseling referrals have been placed, yielding assistance with insurance selection and applications for assistance with co-payments, non-medical expenses, and out-of-pocket costs. During the QI project, several real-time workflow changes were made. On day 1, 519/1811 patients screened positive, yielding an overflow of counseling referrals: an additional question to allow patients to opt into referral, rather than generating an automatic referral, was then added: the following week, 136 referrals were generated. In September 2022, this opt-in was modified to allow patients to directly identify the areas in which they were seeking assistance (e.g., insurance counseling, out-of-pocket expenses). In 2024, the screening was reduced to two COST questions that had a 0.92 correlation with the full-tool. Conclusions: Routine FT screening is feasible during active treatment, although attention is needed to clinical workflows to ensure patients have access to the screening, nurses and other clinical staff are involved in the implementation, and referrals to resources are available for patients who screen positive. Future work will address cadence of delivery and outcomes of interventions.