The Rehab Industry Needs to Clean Up Its Act. Here's How.

A large yellow bulldozer at a construction site low angle view
Feb 04 2016

The Rehab Industry Needs to Clean Up Its Act. Here’s How.

No one argues that the American addiction treatment system is anywhere near optimal—even its cheerleaders recognize that there’s miles to go before all people with addiction have access to respectful, ethical, effective and evidence-based care. Worse, the past year has seen myriad media exposes and financial, sexual and maltreatment scandals.

Of course, done right, addiction treatment can transform lives, with a hugely positive impact on society. It is often the difference between life and death, or between a productive recovery and a life of despair. Yet all too often that opportunity is being blown.

So what is the best way forward? And what are the biggest steps the industry itself can take to improve?

“What we simply need is a nice bulldozer, so that we could level the entire industry and start from scratch,” says Dr. Mark Willenbring, former director of treatment and recovery research at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the founder of Alltyr, a center in St. Paul, Minnesota offering evidence-based alternatives to the mainstream model. “Another approach is that you could use dynamite,” he deadpans.

But he’s serious about the need for radical change. “There’s no such thing as an evidence-based rehab,” he says. “That’s because no matter what you do, the whole concept of rehab is flawed and unsupported by evidence.”

Unsurprisingly, Marvin Ventrell, executive director of the National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers (NAATP), an organization that has represented rehabs like Hazelden and the Betty Ford Center (now merged) since 1978, doesn’t see the need for such an extreme makeover.

However, even he says that the industry is at a “crossroads,” and “we have bad actors out there.”  He adds, “If our procedures for self-policing and transparency aren’t improved, the industry is going to be seriously harmed.”

I have covered addiction as a journalist for nearly three decades, and also have my own history of heroin and cocaine addiction, and of receiving treatment. With the input of longtime leaders in and critics of the field, here are my views on what needs to change.

1. Remove 12-step-related content from treatment—or at least, stop charging for it

In no other mainstream medical or psychological specialty are patients told that the best treatment for their disease is surrender to a higher power, confession and prayer—and, often, that if they don’t accept this method, the only alternative is “jails, institutions or death.”

And in no other area of medicine do insurers pay for hours of group “therapy,” films and lectures that consist overwhelmingly of indoctrination into the teachings of a self-help group, available for free in church basements. As I see it, this is not only a violation of the Eighth Tradition of Alcoholics Anonymous—which says that members should not be paid for their “usual 12th-step work” of helping other alcoholics and addicts get the program—but also a tremendous waste of scarce resources.

Ventrell disagrees, saying that “psychosocial care is not severable from 12-step care” and that 12-step rehabs like Hazelden provide a good model for treatment. But Willenbring argues, “We used to treat breast cancer with prayer, too. We don’t that do anymore.” He favors keeping 12-step programs and treatment separate.

We’re far from that, however. Currently, at least 80% of American inpatient and outpatient drug-free rehab is dominated by the goal of getting patients to accept the ideology of 12-step programs and to attend as aftercare. To my mind, while 12-step programs do help some people, there is absolutely no reason that taxpayers or insurers should pay for the exact same social support and information that can be had for nothing at meetings.

Instead, treatment providers need to cull from their programs the elements that are redundant with 12-step groups—and instead offer evidence-based therapies like cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational enhancement therapy. Patients don’t have the option of getting these for free outside of formal treatment—and the role of treatment should be provide professional medical and psychological care, not self-help.

Removing 12-step ideology from treatment will also allow for easier integration of medication and whatever new approaches research shows over time to be helpful.

2. Ensure access to maintenance treatment for opioid addiction

In any other area of medicine, if patients were not informed about a treatment that cuts mortality by at least half—while being given one that has no effect on it—it would be considered malpractice. And if there were a federal law that limited access to such treatment and said that doctors could only treat a limited number of patients… Well, there probably wouldn’t be one.

But in the addictions field—largely because the dominant abstinence-only model historically hasn’t recognized medication-assisted treatment (MAT) as an acceptable form of recovery—this happens almost every time someone with an opioid addiction enters an abstinence-only 28-day rehab, a detox or an abstinence-based outpatient program. As National Institute of Drug Abuse director Nora Volkow put it in testimony to Congress last year, for opioids, “treatment programs with an abstinence focus generally do not facilitate patients’ long-term, stable recovery.”

Research shows that people who stay on methadone or buprenorphine long term have half the death rate of those who detox from these medications or participate in abstinence-only treatment. (There is no similar data for antagonist medications, including Vivitrol).

Given this, stigmatizing maintenance or telling patients that it is “not really recovery,” is basically killing people. As is the federal cap on the number of buprenorphine patients doctors may treat for addiction in their practice, which was imposed when the FDA approved the drug for addiction and limits most doctors to 100 patients. Since some patients may stay in treatment for decades, the slots fill up fast.

Jeff Deeney, a social worker at a Philadelphia treatment program, is currently faced with the problem of the cap. “We’re dead stuck,” he says. “We have a line four blocks long on our waiting list. We’re maxed out. We’re trying to hire another doctor just to walk in and write scripts.”

President Obama should take executive action and end this arbitrary regulation immediately.

Thankfully, even many dedicated 12-step supporters have come to recognize the need for medication use. NAATP’s Ventrell says that “program integration,” is a critical part of improving addiction care, particularly “depolarizing” the clash between 12-step views and support for MAT. He states bluntly that if counselors or program management see it as being just another form of active addiction, “They’re not providing good care.”

Willenbring puts it even more strongly. “I think there needs to be a lawsuit against a prominent rehab for wrongful death and deprivation of informed consent and negligence,” he says, referring to cases where patients have overdosed immediately upon leaving and were not told that maintenance would reduce their mortality risk.

3.  Fight corruption and unethical practices

In the past year, the addiction treatment industry—never trouble-free in the best of times—has been wracked by scandal. A New York Times front-page exposé revealed sickening conditions, kickbacks and even forcing addicts to relapse to stay housed in supposed “3/4 houses” in the city. The Huffington Post (disclosure: I’m interviewed) published an in-depth investigation of how people with addiction in Kentucky are mistreated and denied access to MAT.

Buzzfeed investigated overdose deaths, kickbacks and overcharging for urine testing in Delray Beach, Florida “sober living” homes, which were also the subject of 2014 FBI and IRS investigations. The Los Angeles Times revealed that the owner of a network of LA rehabs was being investigated by the state and the FBI, for, among other things, sexual relationships with patients, poor care and fraud.

And that wasn’t all. Longtime industry leader and Beyoncé-favorite Phoenix House was also investigated by Reuters for a patient death, for running facilities led by abusive staff and filled with drug use, assault and sexual violence, and for financial mismanagement.

Clearly, change is needed. Even the industry group, NAATP, wants federal regulation to ban practices like “patient brokering,” in which rehabs and sober living homes pay kickbacks for referrals to each other, without regard for whether a facility or service is appropriate for that patient. While the practice is illegal in some states, it is not against the law on the federal level. As Ventrell says, “It should be.”

Another common ethics issue involves misuse of the internet, with some rogue programs actually hijacking web traffic from other sites and transferring phone calls to their own agents. “Some horrible abuses have gone on there,” Ventrell says, noting that the only thing his organization can currently do about it is expel members if they are found to engage in such practices.

4. End the reliance on criminal justice system referrals

The great harm reductionist Alan Marlatt (RIP) frequently used an analogy that compared the rehab industry to other customer-focused businesses. A car company, he noted, faced with declining sales and lack of consumer interest, would not complain that customers are “in denial” about the quality of their vehicles. Nor would it try to have the government arrest people who refused to buy their cars. Instead, they’d improve their offerings—or, at the very least, their marketing and consumer outreach.

But the treatment industry has for too long relied on referrals from the criminal justice system to stay solvent. Because at least one-third of treatment slots—and in many programs up to 80%—are occupied by people whose only other alternative is prison, the industry has had little incentive to make itself warm and welcoming. Instead, it has frequently counseled relatives to practice “tough love” and stage “interventions,” where if the addicted person doesn’t immediately go to rehab, he will lose friends, family and possibly employment.

Several problems result. For one, since their biggest customer is often the criminal justice system, many programs shape themselves to its dictates. “The field has been so distorted by its dependence on the criminal justice system, which is really the client,” Willenbring says, contrasting it to other forms of medical care which have to work to attract patients. Since the criminal justice system is supposed to punish offenders, this leads to support for controlling, punitive and shaming practices in treatment, which are counterproductive.

This is problematic not only for people mandated to treatment, but for everyone else.  Because research shows that empathy and rapport between clients and counselors is the best predictor of positive outcomes, a treatment center that is cold and punitive will be less effective on that basis alone.

Secondly, if a large proportion of the people in a treatment center have been forced to be there and only grudgingly participate, this can interfere with its ability to create a “safe space” for others. It’s hard to open up and be vulnerable while sharing deeply personal experiences of trauma when other patients are laughing or staring stonily at the clock.

One way around this is for programs not to accept coerced patients who haven’t been provided a menu of treatment options—a policy that would also improve drug court outcomes by better matching patients to treatment they prefer. This way, too, providers would have to compete for customers and the criminal justice system’s influence would be reduced. (Even better, of course, would be to decriminalize drugs, but that’s another column.)

5.  End humiliation and confrontation

It’s been known for decades—as I showed in-depth in my 2006 book, Help At Any Cost: How The Troubled-Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids—that confrontational and humiliating “attack therapies” are ineffective and often harmful.

Unfortunately, nearly all long-term residential treatment centers in America— i.e., “therapeutic community” programs that last three months or longer—were originally modeled on a destructive cult called Synanon. Most famous for placing a poisonous snake in the mailbox of an attorney who opposed it, Synanon was founded by an AA member who believed that the steps needed to be applied by force and that people with addiction needed to be broken down completely before they could recover.

Phoenix House, Daytop and Delancey Street were all directly modeled on Synanon—and any program that uses “marathon” therapy groups, “pull ups” (confrontations), makes patients wear degrading signs or outfits and has a hierarchy of positions through which patients rise towards graduation has its roots in Synanon, either directly or indirectly, through staff training. And unfortunately, these methods are also favored by some staff at 28-day rehab programs or intensive outpatient treatments.

While many have moved away from the most extreme tactics, a widespread belief that all people with addiction are lying “whenever their lips are moving” and a sense that negative experience is necessary to get people to realize that they need to change remains common. This is a barrier to successful treatment, because, as William White and William Miller show in this devastating 2007 paper, no study has ever found this approach to be better than kinder alternatives. More confrontation tends to lead to more drinking and drug use, not less.

If we want better treatment, the industry must treat clients with respect and dignity, and stop taking an attitude that the rest of medicine abandoned as harmful decades ago.

6. De-emphasize residential treatment

Research has long shown that in most cases, outpatient treatment is as effective as inpatient care for alcoholism and other addictions. Moreover, as noted earlier, when the substance involved is opioids, outpatient maintenance with methadone or buprenorphine cuts the death rate by at least half compared to residential or outpatient abstinence treatment.

Many people believe that since celebrities go to exclusive spa-like rehabs, this is the most effective type of addiction care. But the data doesn’t support this. “Staying overnight together confers no outcomes advantage,” Willenbring says, adding that research on learning shows that people do not transfer skills acquired in an isolated setting back to their daily lives where they are most needed.

“You cannot learn recovery skills in rehab,” he says. “The work doesn’t start till you get home.” Given that—and the expense of inpatient treatment—it makes sense to limit inpatient care to the shortest possible period necessary for medical stabilization. People also do better at recovering from all types of illness when they are surrounded by their loved ones and can sleep in their own beds.

Of course, for people who live with drug dealers and are in a social setting in which they have no friends or relatives who aren’t also drug buddies, a change of locale could well be beneficial. But that doesn’t mean that living in a treatment program that costs thousands of dollars a day for a month or longer is the best way to accomplish this.

7. Create truly independent accrediting bodies that are consumer-friendly—and national standards of care

Since I write regularly about abusive treatment programs—I’m talking places where beating, sleep-depriving, sexually humiliating and starving patients are seen as acceptable—I’ve had some experience with patients who have legitimate complaints. This is where program accreditors like the Joint Commission and CARF are supposed to come in. Being accredited by at least one of these organizations is supposed to be a sign that the program provides high quality treatment and treats patients with dignity and respect.

Unfortunately, one of the most abusive programs I ever wrote about—Straight Incorporated— was accredited by the Joint Commission at several of its sites. And as late as 2007, a copycat program was accredited by CARF.

At that time, it was extremely difficult for patients to navigate their websites even to figure out how to make a complaint—I’m happy to say that at least in terms of accessibility, that has changed and both groups now have easily located complaint forms. Still, even now, at least one program that was the subject of a major media expose involving serious patient safety and maltreatment problems last year remains accredited.

Further, in order to complain, consumers need to know which of these groups has accredited the program—and the accreditation process is still paid for and guided by the programs. Basically, this means that rehabs know in advance when they will be inspected for accreditation and that accreditors are financially dependent on the programs they are evaluating.

To me, this is a real conflict of interest. Given the fact that state treatment regulation is often lax and there are no federal standards even for basic things like counselor education, accreditation may be the only serious oversight some programs get. We need to make accreditors independent (or at least, less dependent) and ensure that consumer complaints about unsafe or harmful practices are easy to make and are taken seriously.

We also need national standards for counselor education, for best practices in all types of treatment and for informed consent regarding options like medication. All counselors need to be educated about all aspects of addiction, not just their own recovery—and especially, about mental illness and what they are and are not equipped to treat without medical supervision.  We should create scholarships to ensure that people in recovery can get the education they need to qualify and create staff positions that allow for various levels of education—but we should not have lower standards for addiction care than for other specialties.

8. Expand harm reduction

It’s completely outrageous that it took 27 years for the federal government to finally end its ban on funding needle exchange programs, which happened last December. Even when the ban was first passed in 1988,  it was already clear from European data that the programs worked. It took an HIV outbreak in Indiana that infected 175 people last year to finally wake recalcitrant Republicans up.

But expanding needle exchange to where it is needed across the country is not enough. We also need to start providing safe injection facilities (like this one in Canada, which cut local overdose rates by 35%) make naloxone as accessible as possible (including to opioid-addicted people leaving abstinence programs and incarceration) and integrate harm reduction ideas into the treatment system so that people who are not ready for abstinence have options other than simply continuing without medical care.

Of course, none of these eight changes are easy to make, and there are substantial institutional and ideological barriers to many of them.

But even just one—done thoroughly—could have an enormous impact on the quality of addiction care in America. And if all of them were made, the system would be transformed—with or without a bulldozer.

Maia Szalavitz is a columnist for The Influence. She has written for Time, The New York Times, Scientific American Mind, the Washington Post and many other publications. She has also authored six books, including Help at Any Cost: How the Troubled-Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids (Riverhead, 2006). Her latest book is Unbroken Brain: a Revolutionary New Way of Understanding Addiction. You can follow her on Twitter: @maiasz

  • A New Freedom

    Unfortunately the problem lies within how we think treatment should work. You cannot change anything using the same thinking that created the problem. Your article fails to bring any new ideas that would benefit how we treat addiction. We shall allow you the same excuse as those before you. Addiction is without doubt the most elusive force science has been involved with. Because it is a symbiotic relationship with humankind it has no barriers. Understand that relationship exists beyond the addict. Addiction does some of its best work with those that have never used alcohol or drugs.
    We have empirical evidence that supports long term sobriety since 1935. In this time span millions of hopeless alcoholics and addicts have lived and died sober. The scientific and medical community is unable to grasp these successes. We are not a secondary solution to the epidemic of addiction. I admit our ranks must bridge the ever widening gap that exists between providers and science. That would require a level of humility that does not exist today. We have been doing the business of sobriety for a very long time. Instead of contempt, perhaps it would be wise to investigate. You see the addiction epidemic continues to rage through our lives leaving none of us unaffected.


    • Josh Craigle

      Um… I think all 8 steps bring new ideas to the table that would benefit how we treat addiction.

    • disqus_Quri44IJyq

      Although it’s not a new idea, the author makes a cogent article for why we must divorce AA and other 12-step groups from treatment. The current paradigm is a clear failure, but self-help and folk wisdom are much more profitable than actually hiring professionals to help people with addiction. We need to hold the addiction treatment industry accountable for their greed and suppression of evidence-based therapy.

    • Horatio Socks

      I used to be dead against AA. Today, I have a bit of a different opinion of it. Seems to me that most people I know, do not like the ‘God’ portion of AA. Not saying the author does or doesn’t, but that’s just what I’ve found to be true.

      My run-in’s have been with plenty of people (myself included) who have come to grips with the below 12 steps. Maybe not in the exact order they are written, but certainly in it’s entirety. As much as we all think we DO have control, we have very little control. We can’t control our kids, never mind other adults, and our own internal issues.

      And, internal issues are where the brunt of the problems with drugs and alcohol come in. External issues obviously come into play, but it’s how we deal with them.

      1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol … that our lives had become

      2.Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

      3.Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of GOD as we understood Him.”

      4.Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

      5.Admitted to GOD, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

      6. Were entirely ready to have GOD remove all these defects of character.

      7.Humbly asked Him to remove all our shortcomings.

      8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed and became willing to make amends to them all.

      9.Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

      10.Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.

      11.Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with GOD as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will, and the power to carry that out.

      12.Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and practice these principles in all our affairs.

  • techcafe

    ever hear of the Rat Park experiment? google it.

  • Chester Dickerson

    I’ve had my share of recovery centers. Recently, one seemed more concerned with greed, placing less emphasis on patient care. Too many people in the wrong positions, some not qualified nor practicing with in their scope of practice, while others take on group meetings without any education beyond high school and no credentials. We should have more stringent policing of these so-called recovery centers”. To see patients in recovery jacked up on meds not prescribed, to witness inappropriate behavior yet have such events transferred on to others, to see missing meds from the med room all being blamed on discharged patients, to be a part of what may be insurance faux is the utmost agregious of all. Keeping patients for 4 months instead of the max 3, and the list is never ending. How these centers survive without even a slap on the wrist is beyond me. Patients injured on sight should not be required to pay their own ER visit. Isn’t it the responsibility of the facility to do or cause no harm. Taking the word of a patient with regard to what may have been a fatal mistake, that all is ok is not responsible. Waiting to address issue the following day is even less responsible. Passing the buck and using others as scapegoats for their illegalities continues to be commonplace in detox/recovery centers. It’s a money making, patient raping business, unless it is well organized, has a common goal with credentialed staff members. The insurance companies need to keep close eyes on those facilities with high relapse rates. Something isn’t working. Get away from the 12 step program, do more insight research, nutrition has apparently taken back seat, and why do we allow those addicts smoking breaks. Smoking should never be allowed. It’s counterproductive. Why do we need to have candy jars full of candy. I was told because chocolate calms. Not a snickers bar or kit Kat. I believe that dark chocolate, high in cacao was the chocolate of reference.

    If laws are not stricter, if policing isn’t so minimal and inspections continue to be known in advance, how r we to uncover the band aid that the administration places on to masque the deeper injuries that need the most attention. It’s a game, at the expense of the innocent. The controllers are doing none of our community a favor by ripping off their patients. It’s sad, it’s unethical, and charges should be filed at both state and federal levels. We know that isn’t going to happen. The cover ups are way to creative. Wake up people. Scrutinize your options. Google the names of those involved. U may just be surprised by not having done your homework first.

  • iiOOOii

    #6 never actually occurred to me before even though in a cognitive science course we learned about how learning is context-based/not easily transferable (I can’t remember the contents of the particular study which I think is semi-canonical in contemporary psychology but it had something to do with underwater welding? or scuba diving? can’t really remember tbh). but i definitely have thought of “rehab” as like, some sort of definitive cure. very good article, thanks.

  • Ken g

    Great comprehensive article as usual-I look forward to your new book. As a part time addiction counselor and writer on the subject, you make a great and accurate case for the
    tremendous malfeasance in the re-hab world,and as a optimist by nature, I think we need a
    a think tank akin to the”Manhattan Project” to fix the ills of the recovery template.

    Unfortunately, if an addict is not ready,efficacy in the short term goes out the window. That does not mean he should be castigated and thrown to the street corner-we need to offer him harm-reduction as you say. You quote my hero,William Miller, who is not afraid to say “the best counselors are not necessarily the best educated but the most charimatic”. I have seen time and time again the later get fired,because the head counselor’s ego could not tolerate the better instincts of the less educated but more empathetic counselor.

    The only place I feel you are a tad mis-guided is in your overall negativity of AA. I agree !00%that profit centers like the Minnesota Model should find their own paradigm and not mimic AA-that is pathetic to me and always has been. And the fact that other TC’s use 12 step therapy in their advertising is egregious. However, as far as AA’s functionality as a free standalone rehab option it is a godsend to many. Forget that higher power assertion and AA is a place that is in fact communistic(The Transcendentalists view of the world) where a group conscious can be a very powerful thing. Furthermore, AA(you have to find the best meeting for yourself) has always offered kindness and a couch to sleep on and a meal-which is non-existent in any profit center rehab. My experience has always been that any collective put-down of AA is really just alcoholics projecting denial-AA is just free group therapy-you either like it or not but do not pounce on it.

    Finally,the Nora Volkow’s of the world have done some great neuro-science in this field(which I have studied and written about) but there is no one to follow through(big pharma is interested in AD,MS and other Neurological diseases)and Addiction Medicine
    for all intensive purposes unavailable for people with gov’t insurance and even regular insurance-they take cash…And it isn’t psychiatrist’s fault that they get reimbursed at’60’s
    DRG’s. Worst of all,is the 28 yr old

  • Ken g

    ( continuation of other comment)overworked Psychiatrists at the profit centers-they are forced to diagnose everybody with either BP1 or BP11 and prescribe them one of the atypical anti psychotics that make them heavy and diabetic in short order.

  • Pingback: Treatment Reform « Drug WarRant()

  • Pingback: What It's Like to Keep Falling in Love with Heroin Addicts | Czaal News Feed()

  • disqus_Quri44IJyq

    Best article I’ve read on this in a while – I am reposting and sharing.

  • Pingback: The Simple Thing Rehabs Could Do to Save Lives - That They Fail to Do - LiberalVoiceLiberalVoice — Your source for everything about liberals and progressives! — News and tweets about everything liberals and progressives()

  • Pingback: The Simple Thing Rehabs Could Do to Save Lives — That They Fail to Do | KJOZ 880 CALL IN TOLL FREE 1-844-880-5569()

  • Hil O

    While the article has a lot of terrific insights, I believe there are a number of generalizations. One example is that most licensed or state approved programs that receive insurance or state funding for inpatient or outpatient treatment are required to use evidence-based programs. Another is the comment about the goal of 80% of programs being to connect their clients to 12 Step fellowships. What the statistics I saw really showed was that 83 % of 14,148 utilize 12 Step Facilitation Therapy. The stats did not say it was used with other ones. In fact, Substance Abuse Counseling, Relapse Prevention, CBT, Motivational Interviewing, and Brief Interventions were all rated as being used more than 12 Step Facilitation Counseling. With that said, counselors are supposed to practice counseling not AA or NA. Most of us do. The interesting thing is that alcohol counselor certification existed in some stated of the US before counselor licenses existed. The other concern I had about the article was the comment about Therapeutic Communties. Yes, they were modeled on Synanon back when they started but most have been significantly modified. I directed one once for 5 years. Only one staff person ever tried to treat someone they way they were treated in a concept TC. He never worked another shift in that program. I have worked in the field since 1977 and have never worked at a program “where where beating, sleep-depriving, sexually humiliating and starving patients are seen as acceptable.” If I had, you can be sure the police would have been called. The author has a lot of great ideas but it would be terrific if they had broader experience in what the majority of the field is an isn’t doing. This is not the 70’s.

    • That 80% statistic should be much lower because any facility that takes SAMHSA Funding should not be using religious methods like 12 Step Facilitation.

      Rules for SAMHSA/SABG Providers:

      § 54.3
      Nondiscrimination against religious organizations.

      (a) Religious organizations are eligible, on the same basis as any other organization, to participate in applicable programs, as long as their services are provided consistent with the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Except as provided herein or in the SAMHSA Charitable Choice provisions, nothing in these regulations shall restrict the ability of the Federal government, or a State or local government, from applying to religious organizations the same eligibility conditions in applicable programs as are applied to any other nonprofit private organization.
      (b) Neither the Federal government nor a State or local government receiving funds under these programs shall discriminate against an organization that is, or applies to be, a program participant on the basis of religion or the organization’s religious character or affiliation.

      § 54.4
      Religious activities.
      No funds provided directly from SAMHSA or the relevant State or local government to organizations participating in applicable programs may be expended for inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization. If an organization conducts such activities, it must offer them separately, in time or location, from the programs or services for which it receives funds directly from SAMHSA or the relevant State or local government under any applicable program, and participation must be voluntary for the program beneficiaries.

      § 54.5
      Religious character and independence.
      A religious organization that participates in an applicable program will retain its independence from Federal, State, and local governments and may continue to carry out its mission, including the definition, practice and expression of its religious beliefs. The organization may not expend funds that it receives directly from SAMHSA or the relevant State or local government to support any inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization. Among other things, faith-based organizations may use space in their facilities to provide services supported by applicable programs, without removing religious art, icons, scriptures, or other symbols. In addition, a SAMHSA-funded religious organization retains the authority over its internal governance, and it may retain religious terms in its organization’s name, select its board members on a religious basis, and include religious references in its organization’s mission statements and other governing documents.

  • thederbycitygirl .

    Thank you for your insights after writing about recovery and also being involved in your own 12-Step Program of Recovery. I noticed from WIKI you do not have any kind of degree, either undergraduate or advanced and you “attended” Columbia University. I, therefore, cannot either agree nor disagree with your “findings” – I am a member of AA & NA for 24 years and was introduced to the 12 Step Program while in treatment long ago. It worked for me and I would recommend it to anyone suffering with this deadly disease. It is all about surrendering our self-will in order to begin to recover from our alcoholic and drug related consequences and our behaviors – while intoxicated or not. I have discovered the key to physical and emotional sobriety – all I have to do it use it….therein lies the problem with so many people who relapse and eventually fade into nothingness.

  • Pingback: ​Kako sam se iznova zaljubljivala u heroinske zavisnike –

  • Maia –
    A very strong piece. I would add Contingency Management to your list of evidence-based practices. Not only is it an enormously powerful intervention, but also it is one of the most researched approaches in the world of addiction treatment. Here is a link to more information:


  • Pingback: Rehabs’ Failure to Give Lifesaving Naloxone to Vulnerable Clients Is Unacceptable | We Seek the Truth!()

  • Pingback: Evidence-Based Treatment Offers Real Hope to Suffering Addicts | Emotional Sobriety: Friends & Lovers()

  • Pingback: Why the ‘Disease Model’ Fails to Convince Americans That Addiction Is a Health Issue – gXyz.NeWs()

  • Pingback: Why the ‘Disease Model’ Fails to Convince Americans That Addiction Is a Health Issue – gXyz.NeWs()

  • Jeff Christensen

    “You cannot learn recovery skills in rehab,” he says. “The work doesn’t start till you get home.” Given that—and the expense of inpatient treatment—it makes sense to limit inpatient care to the shortest possible period necessary for medical stabilization. People also do better at recovering from all types of illness when they are surrounded by their loved ones and can sleep in their own beds.”

    Spend 10 years with an in patient facility seeing thousands of kids who can not go to or do not have their “own” bed and the ignorance of this statement protrudes like the tip of an opinionated, uneducated ice berg so deep that it will take eons to melt into reality. Hope your kids don’t become heroin addicts because this method will kill them. Longer residential treatment is needed.

    • John Gomez

      Throughout the last ten years we have learned the success rates for many of these for profit unregulated transitional living communities and unlicensed rehabs is rather low. Research has shown that after stabilization evidenced based IOP treatment appears to be as if not more affective then these programs. Plus it’s hard trying to get your insurance company to properly cover a stay at a for profit rehab followed by a stint in a halfway house. Jeff out of all people to appose such drastic changes to this industry it would be someone representing the sober home network in California. To date there is no systematic independently collected descriptive outcome data on the 12 step based programs you represent.

  • Pingback: I’m Not Sorry That I Keep Falling in Love With Men Who Are Addicted to Heroin – Medical Health Care()

  • Pingback: The new eugenics: Why blaming mental illness and addiction on genetics is so damaging - Raw Story - Self Help Education Arena()

  • Pingback: 9 Things You Should Know If Your Child Is Using Heroin | Slantpoint Democrat()

  • Pingback: Non 12 Step Rehab California |