Table 2 Table comparing case studies of OBOT
From: Financial sustainability of payment models for office-based opioid treatment in outpatient clinics
Example study | Massachusetts CHC [43] | North Carolina [46] | Minnesota | National simulation [45] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Type of setting | Community health centers | Primary care system | Safety-net hospital | CHC, other clinics |
OBOT design features | ||||
 1. Clinician type that leads and bills induction visits | Nurse care manager | Nurse practitioner or clinical pharmacist | Physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant | Varies across models |
 2. Clinician type that manages care | Nurse care manager |  | Physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant | Varies across models |
 3. Technical assistance to OBOT team | Day-long training plus ongoing support | Not specified | Addiction specialty team for day-long training and academic detailing; ECHO community | Not specified |
 4. Clinic linked to a ‘hub’? | N | N | Y | N |
Financing | ||||
 1. Nurse visits billable? | Y | N | Facility fee only | Y |
 2. Enhanced fees for preferred OBOT providers | N | N | N | N |
 3. Cross-subsidization from profits on new billable activity | Y | Y | Y | Y |
 4. Use of grant funding | Y | N | N | N |