This talk presents findings from a two-year mixed methods study of Belgian oncology wellbeing centers, offering psychosocial and complementary support. Across Belgium, a variety of models have emerged: while strong regional differences exist between Wallonia and Flanders, centers also differ within regions, reflecting diverse histories, partnerships, and local priorities rather than a common protocol. In Wallonia, integrative oncology has taken root, with wellbeing centers closely connected to hospitals and (para)medical staff. This medical anchoring enhances collaboration and legitimacy but also requires significant funding and also encompasses the risk of epistemic injustice. Flemish centers, by contrast, have mostly grown from psychosocial and community-based traditions, emphasizing peer support, belonging, and meaning-making, yet they operate more independently from hospitals and occasionally at the margins of alternative care. Nevertheless, both approaches offer a clear added value for cancer patients and their loved ones. Most centers currently depend fully on NGO funding. Lobby towards structural funding is difficult given the significant differences in the field an are also faced with increasing uncertainty in a climate of public spending cuts. The walk-in centers also navigate a delicate balance between collaboration and competition for visibility, resources, and visitors. The shared challenge across all models lies in achieving sustainable recognition and financing, while ensuring that psychosocial expertise remains an integral, professionally supported component of integrated oncology—placing the person rather than the patient at the center of care.