Unethical Practices in Addiction Treatment Marketing
Predatory and unethical marketing practices within the addiction treatment sector became particularly prevalent with the advent of Google and other search engines in the early 2000s. Search engines created a change in people’s behaviour, and instead of taking advice from healthcare professionals, or looking at the telephone directory, many people began to search online for advice about alcohol and drug problems.
The ease of access to online information enabled the rapid expansion of websites offering addiction treatment advice and services.
Search engines, and online advertising, meant that it was easier for intermediaries, with no healthcare qualifications to appear alongside established treatment providers for addiction treatment search results.
These intermediaries began to engage in brokering activities with the legitimate providers, and request a finder’s fee before passing over the treatment lead to the treatment centre. At first this financial compensation was 10 or 15% of the cost of treatment, and over-time this grew to 25%, and even 35% of the total cost of treatment.
What this meant was that one short conversation on the phone could be worth several thousands of pounds or dollars. No training, qualifications or set-up costs, nor any overheads or staffing costs were needed.
Patient brokering proliferated and grew, and many of the more reputable and reputable treatment organisations refused to work with the brokers. This was mainly due to ethical concerns about the hidden charges, which the caller was unaware of. In fact part of the business model for many brokers was to deliberately mislead the caller into thinking they were contacting a unbiased helpline, providing an entirely free advisory service.
Similar marketing and referral abuses grew-up alongside the brokering, and treatment professionals began to request referral-fees for sending patients into treatment centres. Faced with increasingly challenging marketing practices from the brokers, many treatment providers adopted more aggressive marketing approaches, some treatment providers launched their own referral websites, or merged with established brokers.
All of this led a series of news stories in America which exposed what was going on. There were also industry and lobbying efforts to clean up the treatment sector in America. There have been laws passed in America specifically banning patient brokering, and there have even been academic studies published. As a result, in America, there are now much greater protections in place to help the vulnerable people who are impacted by these unethical marketing practices.
In London, in 2018, the Sunday Times newspaper blew open the lid on patient brokering in the United Kingdom with a front-page story, and a detailed investigation. As a result Google banned all advertising for addiction treatment on all of its platforms around the world. However, this did not solve the problem, because the patient brokers were still able to appear in normal search engine results – even if they could not pay for advertising.
The issue of patient brokering has been addressed at the political level, with letters to the Minister of State for Health, and engagement between Google and the CQC, however, as of yet, no action has been taken to definitely hamper these practices.
Why this Matters?
Patient brokers often employ deceptive tactics to direct individuals into facilities with promises of high-quality care and success rates, sometimes without regard for the suitability or effectiveness of the treatment provided.
The commodification of addiction treatment exacerbates the problem, as some centres prioritise profit margins over the well-being of their patients. As a result, vulnerable individuals seeking help for addiction can be subjected to substandard treatment or even exploitation.