[ykler]

Speaking as someone perpetually puzzled by the American healthcare system, from an economic standpoint, it seems like it is primarily the responsibility of government or perhaps the insurance industry to fix this. (Government, of course, is paralyzed. As for insurance companies, I don't understand that well their incentives and the impact of regulation on them. For instance, could they refuse to pay for expensive treatments or for relatively ineffective treatments, and would it be worth it for them?) It is good that Google is finally cracking down and bad that they didn't earlier, but it is a bad idea to present corporations (or people) with opportunities to legally make huge profits by doing harmful things (or allowing harm to harmful things to happen).

[sjg007]

They do refuse to pay for experimental treatments or ineffective treatments. The question is why not in the case of shady addiction centers.. my guess is that Florida has/had some language regulating the payers effectively tying their hands. Mental health / substance abuse got a big push from the ACA as well which likely enabled things as well. <conjecture> Also a lot of these early adopters may have likely first started out as court ordered so they were already established for this type of "acute" care and just scaled up when the demand developed. </conjecture>