How AI Search Is Recommending Alcohol Rehab Centers: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Hazelden Betty Ford holds the highest valid recommendation coverage in the category at 10.0% in September 2026, up from 7.6% at the July 2026 baseline — a gain of 2.4 points across the three-month series. The brand's lead over second-place Caron Treatment Centers now stands at 5.0 points.

September 2026 was a quiet month by the benchmark's measure: no tracked brand's month-over-month change exceeded its normal range of variation, and all ten tracked brands are classified as stable. Within the three-month series, however, the pattern set at the July baseline continues — Hazelden Betty Ford's advantage over the rest of the category has not narrowed, and the category has concentrated around a two-brand upper tier.

Caron Treatment Centers recorded the largest increase in valid recommendation coverage across the series, climbing from 1.5% in July 2026 to 5.0% in September 2026, a two-month streak of gains. American Addiction Centers recorded the largest decline in the series, moving from 3.0% in July 2026 to 1.2% in September 2026.

From the July 2026 baseline to September 2026, Hazelden Betty Ford's lead over American Addiction Centers has widened from 4.6 points to 8.8 points, while Caron Treatment Centers has moved past American Addiction Centers and several other brands into a clear second position.

Each monthly benchmark run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations across the tracked AI/search surfaces. In July 2026, the run comprised 602 unique questions: all 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor, 159 were relevant and 641 were irrelevant, leaving 66 qualified observations. In September 2026, the run comprised 629 unique questions: all 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor, 159 were relevant and 641 were irrelevant, leaving 80 qualified observations. The public metrics below use the observations that survive both qualification stages.

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 only.

The qualified observation count is a small fraction of the raw collection universe in both months, and the two figures should not be treated as interchangeable when reading percentages elsewhere in this report. August 2026, the intermediate month, saw 84 qualified observations; September's total sits between the two months.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The qualified observation count grew from 66 to 80 between July and September 2026. Recommendation-shaped answer share rose sharply, from 10.6% to 18.8%, while the share of valid recommendation shortlists grew more modestly, from 9.1% to 10.0%. August 2026 sat between these points, with 84 qualified observations and a recommendation-shaped answer share of 8.3%.

AI Recommendation Trend

September 2026 was a quiet month, but the three-month series shows a widening gap between the leader and the rest of the category.

No brand's movement across the three-month series exceeded the normal range of variation for its observation count, and the benchmark classifies all ten brands as stable in September 2026. The category-level changes came from the combination of several smaller movements: Caron Treatment Centers' steady climb and Ria Health's two-month decline were the only streaks of any length, alongside the widening gap between American Addiction Centers and Caron Treatment Centers noted above.

What Changed This Month

Hazelden Betty Ford

Hazelden Betty Ford's valid recommendation coverage rose from 7.6% in July 2026 to 10.0% in September 2026, a gain of 2.4 points, while the brand's top-three recommendation rate climbed from 6.1% to 10.0%. The brand's rank-one rate rose from 6.1% to 8.8% over the same period.

Raw mention presence moved from 63.6% in July 2026 to 57.5% in September 2026, a decline of 6.1 points, even as the brand's recommendation count rose from 5 valid recommendations in July 2026 to 8 in September 2026. Its net sentiment score improved from 0.1 to 0.4.

The distinction to notice: Hazelden Betty Ford's presence and its recommendation coverage moved in opposite directions across the series. The benchmark cannot establish why fewer mentions are converting into more recommendations; the pattern is visible in the data but not its cause.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types now surface Hazelden Betty Ford as a top-three recommendation, and what evidence sources support those placements?

Caron Treatment Centers

Caron Treatment Centers recorded the largest coverage increase in the category, with valid recommendation coverage rising from 1.5% in July 2026 to 5.0% in September 2026, a gain of 3.5 points spread across two consecutive months of growth. The brand's top-three recommendation rate moved in step, from 1.5% to 5.0%.

The brand's raw mention presence rose from 6.1% to 11.2% over the same period, a gain of 5.1 points, and its valid recommendation count moved from 1 to 4 observations. Net sentiment improved from 0.2 to 0.4.

The distinction to notice: Caron Treatment Centers' recommendation coverage and presence both rose across the series, with coverage moving by a larger margin than presence. None of these changes exceeded the normal range of variation individually.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which specific evidence sources are now associated with Caron Treatment Centers' recommendations, and which prompts account for the four top-three placements?

American Addiction Centers

American Addiction Centers recorded the largest coverage decline in the series, with valid recommendation coverage moving from 3.0% in July 2026 to 1.2% in September 2026, a change of 1.8 points. The brand's top-three recommendation rate fell from 3.0% to 0.0% over the same period.

Raw mention presence declined from 84.9% to 76.2%, leaving the brand still the most visible in the category. Its valid recommendation count moved from 2 observations in July 2026 to 1 in September 2026.

The distinction to notice: American Addiction Centers holds the highest raw mention presence in the category at 76.2%, yet its recommendation credit is now among the lowest for brands with any coverage. The gap between presence and recommendation has widened across the series, even as the notable-gap comparison shows Caron Treatment Centers moving past it in coverage.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts now mention American Addiction Centers without recommending it, and which competitors capture the recommendation in those cases?

Ria Health

Ria Health recorded a two-month downward streak, with valid recommendation coverage moving from 1.5% in July 2026 to 0.0% in September 2026, a change of 1.5 points. The decline was not significant on its own but marks the brand's only directional streak in the tracked series.

Raw mention presence fell from 4.5% to 2.5% over the same period, and the brand's valid recommendation count moved from 1 observation in July 2026 to 0 in September 2026. The brand's net sentiment score is 0.5 in September 2026.

The distinction to notice: Ria Health held recommendation coverage in both July and August 2026, then lost it entirely in September. The brand remains present in 2 observations but captures none of the 8 valid recommendation shortlists this month.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts previously recommended Ria Health, and what changed in September 2026 that removed it from the recommendation set?

The Recovery Village

The Recovery Village's valid recommendation coverage moved from 1.5% in July 2026 to 0.0% in September 2026, a change of 1.5 points, with the loss occurring entirely between July and August. Its rank-one rate also moved from 1.5% to 0.0%.

The brand's raw mention presence declined from 47.0% to 41.2%, even as its present count moved from 31 to 33 observations within the fluctuating qualified base. Net sentiment remained at 0.0, with no positive or negative mentions recorded.

The distinction to notice: The Recovery Village holds the second-highest raw mention presence in the category, at 41.2%, alongside zero recommendation credit for the second consecutive month. This is the widest sustained gap between presence and recommendation among tracked brands.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Why does The Recovery Village appear in answers without being recommended, and which competitors occupy the recommendation slots in those prompts?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

All 80 qualified observations in September 2026 fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster, matching the pattern seen in July and August 2026. The category's recommendation landscape remains shaped entirely by direct brand-seeking queries, with no observations captured for pricing and value or multi-brand comparison.

This means the public benchmark can measure which brands win when a specific center is requested, but it cannot yet answer questions about how AI systems handle cost sensitivity, insurance coverage, or direct head-to-head comparisons. Those commercial questions remain outside the current evidence base.

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. Source presence 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: With 80 qualified observations in September 2026, single-observation changes can move coverage rates by roughly 1.2 points. Several brand movements in this report reflect a change of one or two observations and should be read in that context.
• Qualified denominator vs. raw collection: The public metrics use the 80 qualified observations, not the 800 raw prompt-surface observations or the 159 relevant prompts. Brand-level percentages are calculated only within the qualified set.
• Directional analysis: Month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating. It does not by itself establish the cause of those changes.

Next Step

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

Beneath the aggregate percentages sit the questions that decide commercial outcomes: which high-intent prompts a brand wins, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers. The benchmark surfaces where attention is warranted; only a deeper analysis can explain the mechanism.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It answers the "why" behind the movement and identifies the highest-leverage interventions.

Request an AI visibility audit