Monthly Archives: November 2018


Do You Have To Be in Recovery to Help Someone with Addiction? (and other myths)

Do you have to be in recovery to help someone with a drug problem?


That is the unequivocal answer, but I am happy to make my case with another 958 words. There are a few other foolish assertions that should be addressed as well. Over the years, I have heard the following statements out of numerous AA members, paraprofessionals, and licensed therapists:

  • Only you can decide if you are an alcoholic
  • No one shows up to an AA meeting by accident
  • Only an addict can help another addict
  • If you haven’t lived it, you don’t know it
  • People in recovery are better at working with substance abusers and others in recovery

Let’s address these one at a time.

  • Only you can decide if you are an alcoholic

This is a ridiculous assertion. We do not allow individuals to diagnose their own depression, anxiety, diabetes, cancer, HIV, or heart disease. One of the most common defense mechanisms that people with alcohol and/or other substance misuse disorders use is denial. A common form of denial is blaming others (I had a rough childhood, my girlfriend is mean, marijuana should be legalized, the cops were out to get me, school/work cause me a lot of stress). Another major form of denial is minimizing: they will say I’ve never been arrested. If they’ve been arrested, they’ll say I’ve never been to jail. And so on with prison. We can play this game with alcohol, then pills, then heroin, then needles and then sticking needles in the neck. Waiting for a person to admit they have a substance abuse problem is a poor plan, whether you are a family member, friend, member of AA, or professional counselor. Licensed medical professionals are trained in assessing and diagnosing. Some are clearly better at it than others, but they can do an excellent job at getting past denial.

  • No one shows up to an AA meeting by accident

I showed up to a Gambler’s Anonymous meeting by accident once. The GA members welcomed me, asked me 20 questions in the middle of the meeting and then eventually said, a bit disappointedly, “you don’t have a gambling problem.” Over the last 10 years, I have sent hundreds of nursing, pharmacy, communication, social work, and law students to open 12-step meetings to learn more about addiction, recovery and the power of communities. Courts have forced people to attend meetings who made a mistake or committed a crime, but don’t meet diagnostic criteria. There are dozens of young people I’ve met whose parents forced them to attend meetings because they caught their son or daughter smoking pot or were outraged that they came home drunk. People show up to meetings by accident, and they are sometimes sent to one when they don’t have a problem.

  • Only an addict can help another addict

I got clean and sober at 19 (I’m 40 now). When I went to treatment, every counselor and paraprofessional there was in recovery themselves. They talked about their own experiences a lot. Because of their openness, I felt both less alone and less like an outcast. I thought everyone that worked in the field should be in recovery. I had a psychologist who was not in recovery. He helped me with improving relations with family members, discuss college life, navigate job conflicts, point out my faults in romantic relationships and generally become a better version of myself (and better person). After graduating from Rutgers, I took a job in a long term treatment program. Every counselor and paraprofessional was in recovery. Many didn’t attend 12-step meetings outside of work, most had a lot of countertransference issues and there were several with real boundary problems. I remember thinking, “man…people in recovery really shouldn’t be in this field.” I left that job for an outpatient program where less than half of the clinicians were in recovery – I found there were some really good therapists in recovery, really good ones not in recovery, not so good ones in recovery, and not so good ones not in recovery. I am going to belabor my point. We don’t ask suicidal people (or formerly suicidal people) to work with those with current suicidal ideations. Most cardiologists are not in remission from heart disease.

  • If you haven’t lived it, you don’t know it

I figure I’ve used over 2,000 toilets around America and in 21 other countries on four different continents. I can’t fix toilets for @#$%. This is the kind of folk wisdom that you might hear in a 12-step meeting sometime, but I turn it on its head by claiming ignorance in the face of experience rather than expertise from experience. Experience with a problem can be helpful in dealing with an issue or treating someone else, but it isn’t a requirement. I have never had depression, been bullied because I was gay, gotten cancer, overdosed on opiates or lost a child, but I’ve helped people with those problems over the years. And I’ve been very effective at it. I find that people that claim an expertise because of their own recovery most likely don’t have other knowledge, education, training, or skills that they can utilize to help people.

  • People in recovery are better at working with substance abusers and others in recovery

I used to believe in this. Then I worked at that aforementioned program where everyone was in recovery and many of them were terrible at their job. If someone is in recovery, they might be able to use their personal narrative to connect with someone. But there are people who are not in recovery who have stories that can also connect with others and help get them to open up and consider making behavioral changes. I’ve known a number of great clinicians who are not in recovery, and the statement that people in recovery are better than them is not only offensive, it is false.


*I wrote this for Hazelden back in October of 2016. It was recently taken down from their website, so I have republished it here.


A Veterans Day Story

My close friend and colleague Eric Arauz died in March. I wrote about him everyday for one month. Others followed suit. I took a bunch of the stories and made them into a book, which was published last month. Eric served in the Navy during Gulf War I, back in the 1990’s. He described himself as “a poor sailor but a great veteran.” He loved talking to other veterans and he was an excellent advocate for them, especially those with mental health and/or addiction issues.

Near the end of October, I traveled to the Psych Congress annual conference in Orlando. I was invited by the organizers to come down and talk about Eric. They honored him by naming the kickoff keynote after him and also creating an award in his name. Very cool. I read a few sections from the book. Before I closed with my chapter on Eric at Elizabeth High School, I mentioned how I really would have liked to tell him the story about an Army veteran that I met a week earlier in Philadelphia.

Independence Blue Cross of Pennsylvania put on an all day event about the Opioid Epidemic at the Kimmel Center in Philadelphia. There were four panel discussions and a keynote speaker. I was impressed with the event, and every panel had at least one truly impressive person. The keynote took place just after lunch. The speaker was retired U.S. Army Master Sergeant (MSG) Justin Minyard.

MSG Minyard is a big guy (over 6’5″). He wore a suit, no tie (I approved). His hair was short but he had grown a beard. MSG Minyard began his talk with an apology. “I had a traumatic brain injury,” he said, “and there are times that I can’t get my mouth to say what I am thinking. As frustrating it is for you to watch me pause and stumble, it is even more frustrating for me. Please bear with me.” It was a powerful introduction, and my heart went out to him. I think that most of the audience had a similar reaction.

MSG Minyard was stationed near Washington, DC in the late 90’s and early 00’s. He was on details for both President Clinton and President Bush II, and he also had the honorable task of guarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Within a couple of hours of the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11, MSG Minyard and his unit were at the site trying to rescue people trapped under the rubble. “I was trying to reach a woman who was trapped under three floors of debris and while trying to reach her a load bearing wall collapsed on me and I had spinal damage and had to have several discs removed.” He was 21 years old.

MSG Minyard was a good soldier but a terrible patient. He cut his physical therapy time by more than half and demanded to be returned to the field. He served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan (at least five) and was injured on several occasions. He told a story about how he and a half dozen other special forces operatives were tasked with attacking a bunker in a city. The helicopter was 60 feet above the target. Just as MSG Minyard jumped out of the chopper and went to grab the rope to repel down, they took incoming fire and the helicopter swerved. MSG Minyard was not able to grab the rope and he fell the entire 60 feet. To compound matters, the soldiers that came after him (down the rope) landed on him, exacerbating his back injury.

To deal with the pain and trauma, he was prescribed Oxycodone and Valium. During his speech, MSG Minyard filled a glass with his daily drug cocktail. Then he filled up a glass vase with his monthly dosage. It was a powerful effect and the audience gasped. He lived this way for almost three years. It devastated his wife and his daughter.

“It got to the point that when my four year old daughter asked me to read her a bed time story, I would respond to her with the worst words possible at the highest volume, just inches from her face. Because if I read to her, that was 15 minutes that I could not spare because the CVS would close and I would not be able to get my medication and I’d go into a horrible withdrawal.”

Silence. And then, “I did that. I’m responsible for that. I can never undo what I put my ex-wife and daughter through.”

He talked to therapists and doctors. More than two and half years into his prescribed addiction, someone talked to him about alternative ways to deal with pain. “Why am I just hearing about this now?” he asked.

More silence. And then, “Think about this. I’m just a big dumb Army guy, but I did guard two Presidents and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. I was deployed multiple times and worked on highly important missions. I had access to care and support. If this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone around America.”

MSG Minyard was given spinal cord stimulation and got off his pills. The recovery process was difficult. He has been clean and sober for about eight years and now works for Boston Scientific (the company that developed the spinal cord stimulation technology). He said that he still has pain, but it is mostly manageable. He finished by talking about his 11 year old daughter and how she still wants to hang out with him (“at least for another year and a half”). He takes her to “an expensive park in Orlando” and they walk around all day and evening. The all day walking causes him pain, but he does it for his daughter.

He earned a standing ovation, even from me (I rarely do that). I left my seat and forced my way backstage, past staffers and security. MSG Minyard was drinking water and was guarded by two off-duty Philadelphia police officers. I went up to him and introduced myself. We shook hands. I told him what I do and I thanked him for his talk.

And then I asked him if he wore cufflinks. He said yes.

“Do you have a pair of Army cufflinks?” I asked him.


I started to take mine off. He saw what I was doing and said, “Sir, I can’t possibly take those.”

“Sergeant, you’ve earned them. Wear them with gratitude and pride.”

One of the cops turned towards MSG Minyard and said, “You have to take them. He outranks you.” Then the cop turned to me and saluted.

With tears in our eyes, we all shook hands. I gave him my card and told him that I’d like to connect and possible bring him to Rutgers for a talk. As I started to walk away, my first thought was that Arauz would have loved that guy’s speech and my gesture. It was a resurrection story.

A Veterans Day story.



Bearing False Witness: American Addiction Centers’ Client Outcome Studies

Image result for false witness

By Andrew Walsh

Edited by Frank L. Greenagel II


In February of 2018,  American Addiction Centers (AAC) released a report that summarized three years of patient tracking and patient outcomes research. It was full of distortions and lies. Their press release falsely bragged, “American Addiction Centers is breaking new ground in addiction treatment with the release of its first patient outcome studies.”[i] AAC then offered an even more farcical utterance: the patient outcome studies show that 63% of AAC clients maintain abstinence one year after treatment. I was shocked to read that such a high percentage of clients stayed sober (this was actually the greatest treatment outcome claim I had ever heard). AAC continued to fluff themselves when they reported that the national benchmark for other treatment providers one year after treatment was only 30%. Intrigued by the news release which painted AAC in such a positive light, I dug into the report to learn more (editor’s note: What he found was horrifying).

The patient outcome studies began in 2015 and were the result of a partnership between American Addiction Centers and Centerstone Research Institute (CRI). AAC is a large, publicly traded, for-profit organization that provides[ii] substance abuse treatment in several different American states. CRI is an independent, non-profit research organization. Working together AAC and CRI conducted three studies. They started with a sample size of 4,399 patients. Patients from five different AAC inpatient locations were included in the study. The size and scope of the studies seemingly addressed any potential for geographical influences on data (i.e. the study was so large and spread out that the results should have been representative of the U.S. overall). The study was designed to include regular follow-up intervals (two months, six months, and 12 months) with clients after they discharged. This allowed AAC to track how patients did after they completed treatment.

They released the results of their studies in a 76 page report. The layout and design is visually stunning. The graphics included are clear, crisp, and informative. To a casual observer, this report portrayed AAC as one of the best treatment providers in the world. I could not reconcile this with recent news[iii] regarding American Addiction Centers[iv].

How was the company I was reading about in the report (portrayed as producing the best outcomes I had ever seen) the same company accused of fraudulent drug testing, with a history of lawsuits ranging from SEC violations to patient deaths, and who previously had five employees (including the former company president) charged with murder following the death of a client? Initially in reviewing the report, I thought AAC had moved on from its troubled past[v] and was producing tremendous patient outcomes. However, the more I delved into the report, the more disappointed and outraged I became.

There are several areas of concern I discovered after reading and analyzing the report multiple times[vi]. In particular, I am troubled by two bold statements in it. Additionally, I am concerned about one important section that is missing. I have provided an analysis below.


Statement 1: “At 12 months, 63% of patients were abstinent from all substances”[vii]

Seemingly with this statement AAC, is saying that 63% of their patients were still sober 12 months after completing treatment. However there are several problems with this statement:

  1. It does not mean that patients have been sober for 12 months. It only means that 63% of patients who were surveyed 12 months after discharge had been sober for at least 30 days.[viii]
  2. Per the report, 48% of clients had stayed sober since discharge (12 months sober). This is still an incredibly high percentage. Why report a misleading higher statistic (63% sober at 12 months) instead of just reporting the still industry leading statistic (48% of clients remained sober for at least 12 months after discharge)? That answer is provided below.
  3. These statistics (as are all the stats in their report) are based on patients’ self-reports. This means that none of the answers provided by the patients have been verified with drug tests, or speaking with study participants’ families, friends, and loved ones.
  4. These statistics are based on a sample size of only 80 patients out of the 4,399 patients who were included in this study. Why state the study included 4,399 patients but only include 80 for calculating the key statistics?[ix]


Statement 2: “Over a 3-year period, more than 4,000 people enrolled in the study”

I have taken several graduate level research courses and have professional experience in designing and running clinical trials. I have partnered with various universities including Princeton University, The University of Pennsylvania, and The University of Arizona to conduct clinical trials involving human subjects (editor’s note: He knows a bit about study designs and sample size).

Initially, when I read about the sample size used in this research (4,399 clients), I was impressed. A large sample size is ideal because it decreases the margin of error (it means that the results are likely accurate).

Including five separate locations across the U.S. was also smart because it eliminates geographical differences from impacting the data. For instance, West Virginia and Kentucky have incredibly high rates of opioid abuse. If clients in the study were only from those areas, they would artificially inflate the number of people abusing opioids and seeking treatment at AAC. By using multiple locations across the U.S., the study reduced the likelihood of skewed statistics.

At first glance, the size and scope of this study seemed to be legitimate. The further I dug into the study design and statistics, the more the flaws were exposed. AAC stated they had 4,399 clients in the study, which is a massive sample size. However, this large sample size was not included in generating the statistics AAC cites as proving how amazing their program is. The chart below shows the actual number of clients include in the study at the different follow-up points.

Time Point Eligible Completed Follow Up Rate
2 Month 4,399 1,133 26%
6 Month 1,852 515 28%
12 Month 221 80 36%


The chart content and location raised several questions and concerns for me:

  • Why cite a sample size of approximately 4,399 clients but not make it readily known that not all of those clients were used to generate the statistics referenced in the study?
  • Why is there a discrepancy between eligible patients and completed patients?
  • How were the statistics (such as the 12-month abstinence statistic) calculated?
  • Why was such an important chart buried in the report on page 46?

The more I read the America Addiction Centers’ report, the clearer the answers became. AAC included and cited such a large sample size because it sought to give the public the impression that this was a very serious study and that the results found were legitimate.

Per AAC, they were not able to contact all patients who were enrolled in the study upon the regularly scheduled follow-up intervals. This is understandable and a common occurrence in almost all studies that include a follow-up component. Many study participants move or get new phone numbers or just disappear. However, AAC press releases conveyed that all 4,399 participants were followed up with 12 months after their discharge. In reality, only 1.8% of the 4,399 participants responded to follow-up at the 12-month mark[x].

The 12-month abstinence rate was calculated based on the number patients who responded to the follow-up. At the 12-month mark, 80 patients responded and 51 of them reported that they were abstinent for at least 30 days. 51/80 = 63%. While this math is relatively simple, AAC went against research norms and ethics when calculating it.

In the bottom row of the chat we see that while 221 clients were eligible to participate, AAC was only able to get in contact with 80 of them. The 141 clients AAC could not get into contact with are referred to as loss to follow-up. A common question is; how important is loss to follow-up? Simply put loss to follow-up is extremely important if patients lost to follow-up have different outcomes than those who completed the study. AAC was very proactive in following up with patients. Per the report, an average of 10 phone calls, 4 emails, 6 text messages, and 1 letter were sent over the course of a month to each study participant. What is the likelihood that 141 participants (those who did not respond) moved and changed both their phone numbers and email addresses? There is a very low likelihood that this is the case. Therefore, we need to look at alternative explanations. Based on my experience working with substance abusers as well as conducting clinical trials, I believe it is more likely that a high percentage of these 141 participants most likely relapsed and chose to not report their relapse to AAC.[xi]

Now that we have determined that loss to follow-up is important, we need to look at how it is calculated (editor’s note: bear with him here. I don’t like reading this math either, but this is a really important point. Read it a couple of times if you need to). With an eligible population of 221, 141 clients failed to follow up. We simply take the 141 and divide it by 221 (the eligible population) to get a percentage of 72.8% (the loss to follow-up rate).

Now a good standard is that when a loss to follow-up rates exceeds 20%, it poses serious threats to the validity of the study. AAC’s study has a loss to follow-up rate of 72.8%, which is 3.5 times greater 20% rate that threatens validity (editor’s note: the whole study is invalid. I would fail a college junior for turning this in).

I employed a common research technique to address the follow-up rate problem: treat every patient lost to follow-up as a worst-case scenario (patient relapsed). AAC claims to have a 63% abstinence rate. However, when we included the 141 people in the calculation and coded them as having relapsed, we get a abstinence rate of 23%. This is shockingly lower than the 63% reported. Based on standard practices in conducting clinical trials and studies, the AAC study has significant cause for concern regarding the validity of the findings.


The Third Major Problem: Conflict of Interest

Reporting conflicts of interest in publications is a standard best practice. However, this does not always occur. In reviewing the report, I noticed that there were no disclosures regarding conflicts of interest.  They want the reader to assume that there must not be any conflicts. In researching American Addiction Centers, I made an interesting discovery: AAC hired the CEO of Centerstone Research Institute (CRI) in 2016, in the middle of the studies. Throughout the report CRI is depicted as an “independent third-party non-profit research center.” CRI was theoretically employed in this capacity to ensure the integrity of the data. By hiring the CEO of the company who was supposed to provide independent analysis AAC has threatened the integrity of the study.[xii]


Taken alone, any one of the concerns I have outlined is troubling:

  • American Addiction Centers crowed about their 4,399 person study but used as few as 80 people for some of their key statistics.
  • American Addiction Centers sought to distort the public’s perception by presenting the data in manner in which it could be easily misinterpreted.
  • The company (CRI) that conducted the study was billed as an independent non-profit, but the CEO was hired by AAC before the study was completed. It is a vicious conflict of interest.

Examining all three concerns while simultaneously taking into account recent events involving AAC including locking out employees at its NJ facility in 2017 and a $7 million dollar jury verdict following yet another patient death in February 2018 , an apparent and devastating pattern starts to emerge. American Addiction Centers has a long and well-documented history of putting profits before patients. With gleaming websites, shining brochures, and a visually beautiful report, AAC portrays themselves as a strong treatment program. The websites and brochures hide the dirty reality. The report is invalid, though it is not useless. It gives a first hand account (written by them) of the fraud and lies that they regularly and willfully engage in.



[ii] Provides is used very loosely here. I also thought of adding (substandard) ahead of “substance abuse treatment services” but decided that you already probably knew that.  – Frank Greenagel



[v] “moved on from their troubled past.” Andrew must have been joking here. We mean to show that lies, distortions, death, stealing and dozens of other ethical and legal violations are baked into American Addiction Centers’ DNA. – Frank Greenagel

[vi] He really did. The first time he read it, he gave me a summary. I said we needed an article on it. He went back and read it again and provided more details to me. We then discussed how he should take AAC’s report down, blow-by-blow. This required several readings and copious notes. – Frank Greenagel


[viii] What a horrific distortion. – Frank Greenagel

[ix] A few brutally honest answers before you get to Andrew’s more measured response: their substandard programs produce terrible results, so they need to cherry pick their data, manipulate figures, distort perceptions and sometimes straight up lie. They assume that most people won’t read all 76 pages, so they bury these problems deep within it. – Frank Greenagel


[xi] Let us speculate a step further – American Addiction Centers knew that the clients relapsed and then cut them from the study in order to improve their reported percentages of sober clients. – Frank Greenagel

[xii] Andrew is too kind here. The integrity of the study wasn’t threatened. There is no integrity. The people that conducted the studies are either inept or evil, and possibly both. – Frank Greenagel


Andrew Walsh earned a Master’s Degree in Social Work and a Master’s Degree in Human Resource Management from Rutgers. Prior to working in the behavioral health field, Andrew worked in the Gulf of Mexico oilfield as an internal business consultant focused on innovation and improving the efficiency of people, processes, and procedures. He eventually decided to return to NJ to practice innovation in the behavioral health field. In his free time, Andrew enjoys hiking, cooking, and reading.

He has written previous articles about Addiction HotlinesMedicaidMedicareA Fix For Addiction Hotlines, and how treatment programs keep clients rather than sending them to get appropriate care.