How AI Search Is Recommending Mental Health Treatment Centers: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

McLean Hospital remains the category leader in AI search recommendations, though its lead over second-place Skyland Trail widened only slightly even as McLean's own coverage declined. The benchmark shows McLean Hospital was recommended in 39.3% of qualified observations in September, down 6.0 points from 45.3% in August and down 10.4 points from 49.7% in July. The gap to second-place Skyland Trail was 18.5 points in September, up slightly from 18.2 points in August, because Skyland Trail also lost ground.

The category's defining pattern this month is breadth of decline. Six tracked brands moved beyond normal month-to-month variation on the primary coverage metric: Lindner Center of HOPE, McLean Hospital, Rogers Behavioral Health, Sierra Tucson, Silver Hill Hospital, and Skyland Trail. This marks the second consecutive month in which most significant movement in the category has been downward, a shift from the earlier baseline period when several of these same brands held substantially higher coverage.

The only meaningful upward moves came from three brands building from very small bases, and none moved beyond normal month-to-month variation. Acadia Healthcare rose 0.4 points to 1.4% coverage, Discovery Mood & Anxiety rose to 0.9% after entering the benchmark in August, and Newport Healthcare held at 0.9% after a 2.6-point pullback from its August level. The standout riser on the period remains Acadia Healthcare, whose raw mention presence climbed 6.9 points from baseline, even though its recommendation coverage remains minimal.

The September 2026 benchmark run collected 600 prompt-surface observations across 381 unique questions. Of these, 600 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor: 460 were relevant and 140 were irrelevant. The public metrics in this report use the 211 observations that survived both qualification stages. For context, the July baseline run collected 262 prompt-surface observations and produced 175 qualified observations, while the August run collected 449 and produced 203.

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 qualified observation count grew from 175 in July to 211 in September, passing through 203 in August. The benchmark-level metrics below therefore sit on progressively larger analysis bases across the period. The August intermediate month carried 449 raw prompts and 203 qualified observations.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

AI Recommendation Trend

Six Brands Decline While McLean Hospital Holds the Lead

Six of the ten tracked brands moved beyond normal month-to-month variation between the July baseline and September, all in the same downward direction on valid recommendation coverage. McLean Hospital remains the clear leader at 39.3%, with Skyland Trail second at 20.8% and The Menninger Clinic third at 18.0%; the remaining seven brands sit below 17%.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• What changed in AI recommendation coverage between July and September?
• Which brands moved beyond normal month-to-month variation?
• Where did gains occur, and are those gains reliable?

Skyland Trail: Largest Decline of the Period From Second Position

Skyland Trail's valid recommendation coverage fell 20.3 points between July and September, from 41.1% to 20.8%, moving beyond the range of normal month-to-month variation and marking the largest decline of the period. The August reading sat between at 27.1%, meaning the brand has now declined in two consecutive months. Its raw mention presence dropped 22.3 points from 47.4% to 25.1% over the same span.

The valid recommendation count fell from 72 in July to 44 in September. Top-three placement declined from 33.7% to 13.3%, and rank-one recommendations fell from 9.1% to 3.3%, both substantial drops. Skyland Trail retains second place, but its coverage has nearly halved from baseline and the buffer over the mid-tier has thinned.

The distinction to notice is that Skyland Trail's recommendation decline tracks its presence decline, while net sentiment softened only slightly, from 0.9 to 0.8. This points to a visibility contraction, meaning fewer prompts surfaced the brand at all, rather than a decline in how favorably it was framed when mentioned.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt patterns drove the 28-observation decline in Skyland Trail's valid recommendations between July and September, and which competitor now appears in those answers.

McLean Hospital: Significant Decline but Leadership Intact

McLean Hospital's valid recommendation coverage fell 10.4 points from 49.7% in July to 39.3% in September, moving beyond the range of normal month-to-month variation. August sat between at 45.3%. Despite the decline, McLean Hospital remains the clear category leader with a wide margin over second-place Skyland Trail.

The valid recommendation count fell from 87 in July to 83 in September. Top-three placement declined from 45.7% to 31.8%, a drop of 13.9 points. Rank-one recommendations fell from 29.1% to 21.3%, a smaller decline that stayed within the range the benchmark treats as normal month-to-month variation. Raw mention presence held relatively steady, from 67.4% to 61.1%.

The distinction to notice is that McLean Hospital's presence held largely steady while its recommendation rate declined. The brand is still surfaced in most qualifying prompts, but a smaller share of those mentions now translate into recommendations, and fewer of those recommendations are top-three placements.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types shifted from recommending McLean Hospital to naming it without recommendation, and which competitor gained in those answers.

Sierra Tucson: Significant Decline, Then Stabilization

Sierra Tucson's valid recommendation coverage fell 12.8 points from 24.6% in July to 11.8% in September, moving beyond the range of normal month-to-month variation. August sat between at 11.3%, meaning the sharpest drop occurred in the first month of the period and September held roughly steady. The September reading was actually up 0.5 points from August, within normal variation.

Raw mention presence fell from 32.0% in July to 14.2% in September, a decline of 17.8 points. The valid recommendation count fell from 43 to 25 observations, then stabilized. Rank-one recommendations held steady, from 1.1% to 1.4%, while top-three placement declined from 13.7% to 5.2%. Net sentiment held at 0.9.

Sierra Tucson's story is a two-phase pattern: a sharp contraction between July and August, followed by a flat September. With 25 valid recommendations in September, the remaining base is small but no longer shrinking.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the stabilization in September reflects a durable floor for Sierra Tucson's coverage or a pause before further contraction.

Rogers Behavioral Health: Accelerating Decline

Rogers Behavioral Health's valid recommendation coverage fell 13.9 points from 23.4% in July to 9.5% in September, moving beyond the range of normal month-to-month variation. The decline accelerated in the most recent month: the brand fell 7.3 points between August and September alone, which itself moved beyond the range of normal variation.

Raw mention presence fell from 32.6% in July to 14.2% in September, a drop of 18.4 points. Top-three placement declined from 20.0% to 7.1%, and rank-one recommendations fell from 8.6% to 1.4%, both substantial declines. The valid recommendation count fell from 41 to 20 observations.

Rogers Behavioral Health's net sentiment softened from 0.8 to 0.7, a modest shift but notable in a category where most brands hold near 0.9. The brand is being surfaced less often and, when surfaced, is less likely to appear in a recommendation position.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces account for Rogers Behavioral Health's accelerating presence decline, and whether the sentiment shift is concentrated in specific prompts.

Lindner Center of HOPE: Significant Decline With Softening Sentiment

Lindner Center of HOPE's valid recommendation coverage fell 16.4 points from 24.0% in July to 7.6% in September, moving beyond the range of normal month-to-month variation. Raw mention presence dropped 18.5 points from 30.3% to 11.8%. Its valid recommendation count fell from 42 to 16 observations.

Top-three placement declined from 11.4% to 5.7%, also a substantial drop. Net sentiment softened from 0.9 to 0.7. Lindner Center of HOPE has now declined in two consecutive months, with the September reading down another 4.7 points from August.

The distinction to notice is that Lindner Center of HOPE's decline combines reduced presence with softening sentiment, a pattern shared with Rogers Behavioral Health but not with Skyland Trail or Sierra Tucson, where sentiment held steady.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts previously returned Lindner Center of HOPE as a recommendation now surface a different center, and why the brand's net sentiment softened.

Silver Hill Hospital: Significant Decline With Sentiment Intact

Silver Hill Hospital's valid recommendation coverage fell 9.6 points from 25.7% in July to 16.1% in September, moving beyond the range of normal month-to-month variation. August sat between at 20.7%. Raw mention presence fell from 32.0% to 17.5%, a drop of 14.5 points.

The valid recommendation count fell from 45 to 34 observations. Top-three placement declined from 18.3% to 10.9%, while rank-one recommendations fell from 3.4% to 0.9%, a smaller move that stayed within the range the benchmark treats as normal variation. Net sentiment held near 0.9.

Silver Hill Hospital's decline is a presence-driven contraction with sentiment intact. The brand is surfaced in fewer prompts, but when mentioned it retains strong positive framing, with a net sentiment score of 0.9.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces or question types account for Silver Hill Hospital's reduced presence, and whether the brand still ranks well in the prompts it does win.

Acadia Healthcare and Discovery Mood & Anxiety: Small-Base Gains

Acadia Healthcare rose 0.4 points to 1.4% valid recommendation coverage in September, from 1.0% in August and 0.6% in July. Its raw mention presence climbed from 4.0% to 10.9% over the baseline span, a 6.9-point increase, even though recommendation coverage remains minimal. The valid recommendation count rose from 1 to 3 observations.

Discovery Mood & Anxiety entered the benchmark in August at 1.0% and held at 0.9% in September, with 2 valid recommendations. Its raw mention presence rose from zero in July to 2.4% in September on a small base.

Both brands operate on very thin bases, and their recommendation coverage percentages should be read with that limitation in mind. The more meaningful signal is presence growth, which indicates these brands are now appearing in AI answers where they were previously absent.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the presence gains for Acadia Healthcare and Discovery Mood & Anxiety translate into recommendation coverage, or whether they remain mentions without recommendations.

The Menninger Clinic: Most Stable of the Declining Group

The Menninger Clinic's valid recommendation coverage fell 4.9 points from 22.9% in July to 18.0% in September, a decline that stayed within the range the benchmark treats as normal month-to-month variation. Raw mention presence fell from 29.7% to 23.2%. The valid recommendation count fell from 40 to 38 observations.

The Menninger Clinic stands out for what did not happen: unlike five other brands, its decline stayed within the range the benchmark treats as normal month-to-month variation. The brand ranks third, behind McLean Hospital and Skyland Trail, and leads the mid-tier cluster.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Why The Menninger Clinic's top-three placement declined 7.4 points from baseline even though its overall coverage classification remained stable.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• What commercial questions can the public benchmark answer?
• Which buyer-intent clusters have enough data for analysis?
• What remains outside the scope of this dataset?

The September benchmark observed a small number of comparison-style responses (6 comparison analyses) within the qualified set, up from 2 in August, and no pricing-analysis responses. These counts remain too small to support brand-level conclusions about how AI systems compare named options or discuss cost. The evidence is concentrated in the discovery and consideration stage, where AI systems make a single recommendation or produce a shortlist.

The public benchmark therefore cannot yet answer commercial questions about price positioning, value messaging, or head-to-head differentiation between specific centers. Those questions require company-level analysis of the underlying prompt patterns.

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. Research documentation is available at:

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

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Several brands in this vertical operate on small absolute counts. Acadia Healthcare, Discovery Mood & Anxiety, and Newport Healthcare each have 3 or fewer valid recommendations in September, and their percentage movements should be read with that limitation in mind.
• Qualified benchmark observations (211 in September) differ from the raw prompt collection (600). Brand-level percentages are calculated within the qualified set only.
• The benchmark identifies movement worth investigating; it does not establish cause. A change in recommendation coverage can reflect AI system behavior, underlying source material, prompt composition, or measurement effects that the public benchmark cannot separate.

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 determine 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. For a category in which six brands declined significantly over the period, the prompt-level detail is the difference between reacting to a number and understanding what is behind it.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. Where the benchmark shows movement, the audit identifies the highest-leverage response.

Request an AI visibility audit