How AI Search Is Recommending Addiction Treatment Centers: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Hazelden Betty Ford remains the category leader in September 2026, holding valid recommendation coverage of 7.0%, down 18.2 points from its August peak of 25.2%. Despite the decline, the brand leads the next closest brand by 5.4 points over Caron Treatment Centers at 1.6%. The benchmark flags one significant movement this month: Hazelden Betty Ford's decline in valid recommendation coverage from August to September. The remaining nine tracked brands stayed within normal month-to-month variation.

The headline movement is Hazelden Betty Ford's pullback from 25.2% in August to 7.0% in September, a drop that the analysis flags as significant. The brand still holds 9 valid recommendations in September, down from 25 in August, and remains the only brand with meaningful reach into top-three placement at 6.2% of observations. Caron Treatment Centers stepped down from 6.1% to 1.6% with 2 valid recommendations, and Recovery Centers of America and The Recovery Village each hold 0.0% coverage after losing earlier positions.

Across the full July-to-September series, the category moved from fragmented low single-digit coverage in July, spiked to a dominant leader in August, and settled in September into a thinner competitive landscape where Hazelden Betty Ford leads with 7.0% but no other brand exceeds 1.6%. The gap between Hazelden Betty Ford and The Recovery Village widened by 8.4 points since the July baseline, and the gap between Hazelden Betty Ford and Recovery Centers of America widened by 7.0 points.

Each monthly run begins with 435 prompt-surface observations (343 unique questions) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe in July 2026, and 681 prompt-surface observations (508 unique questions) in September 2026. Of those, 435 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor in July and 681 did so in September; 187 were relevant and 248 were irrelevant in July, versus 383 relevant and 298 irrelevant in September. The public metrics use the qualified observations that survive both qualification stages: 72 in July 2026, 99 in August 2026, and 128 in September 2026.

Key Findings

Benchmark Context

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set.

The benchmark-level metrics below aggregate all ten tracked brands within the qualified observation set for each month.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

August 2026 marked the category's peak concentration, with Hazelden Betty Ford at 25.2% coverage and Caron Treatment Centers at 6.1%. September reverted toward the fragmented pattern of the July baseline, though Hazelden Betty Ford retained a lead over the rest of the field.

AI Recommendation Trend

Hazelden Betty Ford leads a thin field in September after an August spike recedes, with six of ten tracked brands holding no recommendation coverage

No brand exceeded normal month-to-month variation from the July baseline to September. The category-level picture in September came from the combination of several smaller movements rather than a single dominant shift, with Hazelden Betty Ford's 18.2-point drop from August the sharpest single-month change.

What Changed This Month

Hazelden Betty Ford

Hazelden Betty Ford's valid recommendation coverage fell from 25.2% in August to 7.0% in September, an 18.2-point decline that the analysis flags as significant. The brand logged 9 valid recommendations in September against 25 in August, holding the category lead despite the reduction.

Top-three placement fell to 6.2% in September from 9.1% in August, and rank-one placement declined to 5.5% from 7.1%. Raw mention presence fell to 45.3% in September from 65.3% in the July baseline, meaning the brand appears in fewer answers but still converts a meaningful share into recommendation credit.

The distinction to notice is that Hazelden Betty Ford's presence declined while its recommendation behavior held steadier. September's 7.0% coverage still leads the category, but the August spike to 25.2% did not persist at that level.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types and surfaces drove the August surge, and which of those patterns persisted into September versus reverted.

Caron Treatment Centers

Caron Treatment Centers stepped down from 6.1% valid recommendation coverage in August to 1.6% in September, a 4.5-point decline. The brand logged 2 valid recommendations in September against 6 in August, and its raw mention presence held roughly steady, at 8.3% in the July baseline and 8.6% in September.

The brand's top-three rate reached 1.6% in September with 2 placements, down from 2.0% with 2 placements in August. Caron Treatment Centers recorded no rank-one placements in September after holding 1 in August.

Caron Treatment Centers had no recommendation coverage in the July baseline, so its September position of 1.6% still represents net progress across the three-month series, but the August momentum did not hold.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts produced Caron Treatment Centers' August recommendations, and which of those answers shifted away in September.

Recovery Centers of America and The Recovery Village

Recovery Centers of America fell from 2.8% valid recommendation coverage in July to 0.0% in September, a 2.8-point decline, and logged zero valid recommendations in September against 2 in the baseline. Raw mention presence fell from 20.8% to 10.2%.

The Recovery Village dropped from 4.2% coverage in July to 0.0% in September, with zero valid recommendations in the current month. Its raw mention presence held at 25.8% versus 27.8% in July, meaning the brand remains present in answers but receives no recommendation credit.

Recovery Centers of America has now posted two consecutive months of decline in valid recommendation coverage, while The Recovery Village has recorded two straight months without any valid recommendations.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the sustained loss of recommendation credit reflects a change in how AI systems present these brands in factual versus recommendation contexts.

American Addiction Centers

American Addiction Centers moved from 0.0% valid recommendation coverage in August to 0.8% in September, a 0.8-point gain with 1 valid recommendation. The brand's raw mention presence rose from 27.3% in August to 49.2% in September, a 21.9-point increase.

Despite the rise in presence, American Addiction Centers' top-three rate sits at 0.0% in September, and its rank-one rate is also 0.0%. The brand appears in nearly half of observations but receives minimal recommendation credit.

The brand's position in the July baseline was stronger at 2.8% coverage with 2 valid recommendations. September's single valid recommendation represents partial recovery but not a return to July levels.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which answer formats present American Addiction Centers as a factual mention versus a recommendation, and what evidence drives that distinction.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

The public benchmark therefore measures which treatment centers AI systems recommend, but it cannot yet answer commercial questions about price competitiveness, value positioning, or direct head-to-head comparison outcomes.

Brand Opportunity Summary

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations (query, surface, recommendation outcome, rank, sentiment, and citations where exposed). Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns. Presence in a source is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the LLM Authority Index AI Market Discovery research program.

• AI Industry Market Discovery Methodology
• AI Industry Market Discovery Metrics
• AI Industry Market Discovery Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Small-count movement: most brands hold between 0 and 9 valid recommendations; percentage movements on these bases can shift sharply between months and should be read alongside the absolute counts.
• Qualified denominator: all brand-level percentages use the 128 qualified observations in September 2026, not the 681 raw prompt-surface observations.
• Directional analysis: movement between months identifies changes worth investigating; it does not by itself establish what caused those changes.

Next Step

The Public Benchmark Shows Where a Brand Is Winning or Losing. A Company-Level Audit Shows Why.

The aggregate percentages in this report sit on top of individual decisions: which high-intent prompts each brand wins, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI systems associate with each treatment center, and which external sources shape those answers. For a leader like Hazelden Betty Ford, the question is whether the 7.0% coverage is durable or whether the August spike revealed specific vulnerabilities. For brands like Recovery Centers of America and The Recovery Village, the question is which answers changed and what evidence drove the sustained loss of recommendation credit.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy.

Request an AI visibility audit