In years past — usually every November — Sierra Tucson and its Overlord and Master, Acadia Healthcare, would descend upon the Dallas–Fort Worth area to host their annual “Gratitude for Giving” Event.
This event purported to honor individuals and organizations making a positive impact in the mental health community. A noble endeavor, at least in theory — recognizing the resilient, compassionate mental health professionals who do thankless work while corporate giants circle overhead, feeding off their labor.
So without further ado, let’s get to this year’s honorees. They are …
Uh … well … uh…
Make no mistake: North Texas is overflowing with mental health heroes who deserve recognition — especially the ones humble enough to insist they are not worthy of it.
And yet, Acadia chose to honor …
That is undoubtedly due in large part to the fact that Acadia is not hosting a Gratitude for Giving Event in North Texas this year.
Why? Oh, the reasons are plentiful. Embarrassingly plentiful.
Possible Reasons
It could be … that Acadia’s once-respectable stock price — around $82 per share in September 2024 — is now living, if one can call it that, on life support at a pathetic $15.00. That’s not a dip; that’s a financial face-plant. Ouch.
It could be the ongoing Department of Justice fraud investigation that refuses to die … much like the problems Acadia keeps pretending don’t exist. Nothing says “gratitude” like having federal agents rummaging through your corporate laundry.
It could be in November 2025, Acadia shelled out a cool $179 million to settle one of the many fraud lawsuits brought by its own shareholders. When your investors sue you, you know you’ve achieved a special level of corporate rot.
It could be the numerous other pending lawsuits against Acadia owned entities for allegedly physically and sexually abusing people entrusted to its care(?).
It could be the abrupt closure of multiple Acadia facilities over the past year — not because they suddenly discovered ethics, but because the abuse was too egregious or the profits weren’t fat enough. Facilities like Options Hospital, Carolina House, Timberline Knolls, Montecatini.
It could be the number of victims under the “watchful” eye of Acadia who died at their facilities.
It could be the fact that the Department of Veteran’s Affairs is investigating Acadia for allegedly engaging in Medicaid fraud.
It could be that shareholders have filed other fraud lawsuits against Acadia alleging that Acadia engages in medically unnecessary involuntary hospitalization of psychiatric patients. Because nothing says “healthcare” like trapping people to bill insurance.
It could be that Acadia’s methadone clinics are under investigation for falsifying medical records to meet productivity quotas — and billing insurers and Medicaid for therapy sessions that never happened. Productivity over people, as always.
It could be that in June 2024, the US Senate issued a scathing report regarding Acadia and 3 other entities alleging in part that vulnerable children are being used as pawns to maximize the profits of these facilities – and American taxpayers are footing the bill. The report further states, “More often than not, these kids aren’t even getting the basic care they need and instead are in many cases experiencing serious neglect and abuse.”
This is not a wave of bad publicity. It is a tsunami of scandal, abuse, fraud, and moral bankruptcy. And so Acadia — desperate for even a flicker of positive PR — chooses to honor…
Shouldn’t we wonder why? Is it because its head isn’t screwed on just right? Could it be perhaps, that its shoes are too tight? But, perhaps the most likely reason of all … is that its heart is two sizes too small!
But let’s drop the Seussian metaphors for a moment. We all know the real reason.
When an entity places profits over patient care, the inevitable results are mistreatment, abuse and tragedy. At its quarterly shareholders’ meetings, the number of beds are discussed, quarterly revenue, adjusted EBIDTA, capital expenditures, market trends, and issues pertaining to its revenue. What is not discussed is the lack of QUALITY care given, the harm to families it is causing, the abuse, or how the lack of oversight of its facilities is being addressed.
Life and death issues being cavalierly dismissed. After all, we can’t let a few deaths and some abuse detract from Acadia’s CEO’s annual salary of $7 million! That daily paycheck of $19,178.00 needs to keep rolling in!
With this long history of abuse, assault, fraud, unethical profiteering, lack of transparency, shuttering facilities and gross mismanagement, who should be referred to any Acadia facility?
Sadly, that will not stop eating disorder organizations from continuing to accept Acadia’s dirty money and marketers continuing to refer families to Acadia’s chambers of abuse … More’s the pity.
An insurance company denying your legitimate, desperately needed health insurance claim has become all too common, an ordinary way of life … and a large profit center for those insurance companies.
Finally one attorney, Brian Hufford, has dedicated his practice to addressing this widespread problem. But first, let’s look at the alarming statistics.
In 2023, insurers on the HealthCare.gov marketplace denied an average of 19% of in-network claims and 37% of out-of-network claims. Denial rates varied widely by insurer, ranging from as low as 1% to over 50%.
Surprisingly, the most common reason for denial isn’t related to medical necessity at all. A full 34% of denials fall under the nebulous category of “Other”—an unspecified catch-all that gives insurers maximum flexibility and patients minimum clarity. When these vague denials are appealed, they’re overturned approximately 55% of the time, suggesting that the majority have no solid justification.
Administrative issues account for another 18% of denials. These include coding errors, missing information, or duplicate claims—technical issues having nothing to do with whether the care was appropriate or covered under the policy. These denials have the highest overturn rate at 78%, as they’re often simple misunderstandings or clerical errors that can be easily corrected.
Claims categorized as “service not covered” make up 16% of denials. While these have a lower overturn rate of about 35%, successful appeals often demonstrate that the service actually does fall under covered benefits when policy language is properly interpreted or when the medical necessity is clearly established.
Prior authorization issues cause 9% of denials, with patients receiving care without getting the insurer’s permission first. These have a 65% overturn rate when appealed, particularly when the care was urgently needed or when the provider can demonstrate they attempted to secure authorization.
Perhaps most concerning are the “not medically necessary” denials, which represent 6% of cases. These denials essentially second-guess your doctor’s judgment about what care you need. Yet when patients and their doctors challenge these determinations, they succeed approximately 70% of the time—an alarming discrepancy that raises questions about how these decisions are made in the first place.
Despite these high denial rates, fewer than 1% of denied claims are ever appealed by consumers. A survey found that 85% of patients never file a formal appeal, often due to a lack of awareness of their appeal rights or the complexity of the process.
When consumers and providers do appeal, they have a strong chance of success. According to a recent KFF survey, patients who took the time to appeal their denials experienced a 44% success rate with initial internal appeals—meaning nearly half of all challenges succeeded in the first round. For those whose internal appeals were rejected and who proceeded to external review, an additional 27% succeeded at that level.
When healthcare providers manage the appeal process, over 54% of initially denied claims are ultimately paid after multiple rounds of review. Some sources suggest that up to 80% of appeals can be successful when pursued effectively.
In summary, despite the fact that while claim denials are common, and patients and providers who navigate the appeals process often succeed in getting the denial reversed, the vast majority of denials go unchallenged.
The 2023 KFF Survey of Consumer Experiences with Health Insurance found that 58% of insured adults said they have experienced a problem using their health insurance, including denied claims. Four in ten (39%) of those who reported having trouble paying medical bills said that denied claims contributed to their problem.
Each denial costs medical practices, on average approximately $43 to process, creating over $19 billion in administrative waste annually across the healthcare system. Small practices often spend more than 12 hours weekly wrestling with insurance companies over denied claims.
By making the process difficult and opaque, they ensure most people simply give up and pay out-of-pocket, or worse, forgo necessary medical care altogether. The financial result is billions in unpaid claims that boost insurance company profits while shifting costs to patients.
And at least one man, one attorney has had enough. Brian Hufford was one of the lead attorneys in the Wit v. UBH case still pending in California.
Briefly, David Wit along with other insureds brought a class action lawsuit challenging United Behavioral Health’s (UBH) use of flawed, financially motivated internal guidelines to deny coverage for mental health and substance abuse treatment, rather than applying generally accepted standards of care. The district court initially found during a class action trial that UBH violated the terms of its health insurance policies and breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA, ruling that UBH’s internal guidelines were defective and more restrictive than generally accepted standards of care. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision on the benefit claim and dismissed those class claims but sent it back to the district court to determine if the fiduciary duty findings should remain. Upon reconsideration, the district court again found that UBH breached its fiduciary duties. The case is on-going.
Despite that case still being active, Brian left his firm to start his own practice. After spending a career founding and running health insurance dispute practices at private firms, representing patients and clinicians against insurance companies, Brian opened his own practice as of July 1, 2025, to focus on public policy and advocacy.
His primary work is to expand help for people appealing health insurance denial. As the statistics show, this is a service that is wholly lacking in our current system. To address this matter, Brian is working with law schools to provide pro bono opportunities to law students who assist with health insurance appeals, working under his supervision. He is coordinating this effort through the People’s Action nonprofit, which is pursuing a Care Over Cost campaign, and Brian is serving as legal advisor to its National Appeals Team. Brian is also working as Senior Legal Advisor to Claimable, Inc., a start-up that is using AI to systematize health insurance appeals (www.getclaimable.com/).
If you have people who have been subjected to denials and need help with appeals, feel free to contact Brian (which is pro bono through his law school project). Depending on the number of patients who reach out, he may also connect people to Claimable for assistance.
Brian’s website is below, which has a link to a form patients can fill out. The form is automatically forwarded to Brian, and he will then follow up. You can contact Brian with any questions you may have.
This crucial resource for our families is so incredibly important. And could very well mean the difference between you getting the necessary care you or your loved one need versus suffering from an unjust system.
As many know, iaedp is facing an existential crisis brought about by its own lack of transparency, past irresponsible management decisions, litigation, and administrative complaints filed with the IRS, Department of Labor and the California Franchise Tax Board.
It has been almost a year since I last wrote on iaedp. This article is meant to give an update on various issues. As before, these updates will be coming from a person who is in an adversarial relationship with iaedp.
On behalf of aggrieved eating disorder certified professionals and a potential class, I filed the lawsuit in federal court in Dallas, Texas. Iaedp, Dena Cabrera, Dr. Joel Jahraus and Dr. Ralph Carson were named as defendants. They are represented by a law firm based in Chicago. Ms. Harken is represented by a different law firm. All attorneys are from reputable firms and have strong reputations.
The case was moved to the Central District of Illinois, a district in which Ms. Harken resides. Despite the passage of time, the case is in its infancy and none of the substantive merits have been decided. iaedp, its named board members and Ms. Harken have all filed motions to dismiss the case. In essence, the defendants are saying that the plaintiffs have not properly plead the case, do not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit and did not allege sufficient facts supporting their claims. These types of motions to dismiss are standard practice in most cases filed in federal court.
Naturally, the Plaintiffs disagree with the Defendants’ position, are requesting that the motions be denied and the case be allowed to proceed. The Court has not yet ruled on those motions.
In the unlikely event the motions are granted and the case is dismissed, an appeal will be filed in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, Illinois. When the motions are denied, the case will proceed to the next stage. This involves engaging in extensive discovery, depositions and document production.
Regardless, the lawsuit will not be decided any time soon as settlement is unlikely. In the past almost two years, including before filing suit, the plaintiffs made at least three (3) settlement offers with the hope of expeditiously resolving this matter.
iaedp chose to not make any substantive response.
Before filing suit, we sent a letter with information and evidence showing improprieties and concerns about iaedp. We requested that we sit down and talk as professionals. We even suggested bringing in a neutral mediator to assist. No monetary demands. No demands that any iaedp officer be fired. iaedp and Ms. Harken decided to “lawyer up” and refused to talk. This necessitated filing the lawsuit. Had Ms. Harken and iaedp agreed to meet, perhaps the lawsuit would not have been necessary. And iaedp would not be on the edge of collapse.
In the past few months, we again made a settlement offer to Drs. Carson, Jarhaus and Ms. Cabrera. We requested that with their attorneys present, they sit down and have a professional, frank discussion about any knowledge or information they had of iaedp. In exchange, they would be dismissed from the lawsuit. No monetary demands. No public statements demanded. Just a request to talk. Again, our efforts were rejected.
As such, the parties are now set in their positions. No further settlement discussions are anticipated. No settlement is anticipated. When all efforts to salvage what is left of iaedp have been refused, what is there to discuss? Every attempt we made to resolve all issues so that past sins could be addressed leading to a more hopeful future were rejected.
There are times in a lawsuit, if one side is pushing settlement discussions, the other side looks upon that as a sign of weakness. The opposing attorney thinks, “They recognize the holes in their own case! We can exploit this.” At times, that is accurate.
However, there is another reality. At times one side may wish to pursue settlement for a much greater purpose. By addressing past sins, and then moving forward, the needs of a community are often best served. It is a sign of being willing to work for the common good. Far from a weakness, it demonstrates strength. It is not a sign of an unwillingness to go to war. Instead, it is a willingness to exhaust all possible avenues of resolution before going to war. Because that may be in the best interest of a community. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
An expeditious, confidential settlement was in iaedp and Ms. Harken’s best interest. Especially when you consider the following facts, all of which have been confirmed as being accurate:
For a significant period of time, iaedp was not in good standing in the State of California, the state in which it was organized;
When a California organization is listed as not being in good standing, it does not have the authority to conduct business (including perhaps, overseeing and issuing board certifications);
For most of its existence, iaedp was not registered as a foreign (California) organization in the State of Illinois, its principal place of business;
When a foreign (California) organization is not properly registered in the State of Illinois, it does not have the authority to conduct business (including perhaps, overseeing and issuing board certifications);
The Illinois Secretary of State lists a number of iaedp chapters as being dissolved or not in good standing;
As a result of the lawsuit being filed, iaedp removed the requirements of symposium attendance and association membership in order to acquire or maintain board certification. This happened only after the lawsuit was filed and was one of the key issues in the case;
Some person, presumably Mr. Harken, forged the signatures of Dr. Jahraus and Ms. Cabrera on corporate documents submitted to the Illinois Secretary of State;
Presumably in order to attempt to avoid paying taxes not just to the State of California but the IRS, Ms. Harken classified herself, or at times, her non-existent corporation as an independent contractor;
The California Franchise Tax Board assessed and is collecting significant back taxes, penalties and interest from iaedp;
Even though there is a legion of documents, including Ms. Harken’s prior sworn declaration that Ms. Harken was an independent contractor, last month Ms. Harken filed a motion with the Court stating that she was an employee of iaedp. The significance of misleading the Court on this issue was to attempt to avoid liability under the racketeering laws;
As a result of Ms. Harken’s false statement about being an “employee,” Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions asking the Court to assess sanctions against Ms. Harken.
There are many other facts supporting Plaintiffs’ right to recovery in the lawsuit. However, perhaps the most significant issue may be that since iaedp was not in good standing in either California or Illinois for significant periods of time, did iaedp have the legal authority to oversee and issue board certifications during those times? That is, if you were issued your board certification when iaedp was not in good standing, is your certification valid? Is your certification basically a worthless piece of paper? And if not, what are the ramifications? Those will be questions for the Court to decide.
In litigation as in war, you achieve victory by engaging in a relentless, well-orchestrated and carefully designed plan to obtain victory and deprive your opponent of the initiative. You make your opponent pay a price higher than it expected for choosing the path of war. In litigation, an attorney has the power of the legal system. Issuing subpoenas for relevant documents not just from the named parties but also from third parties and witnesses. Deposing people who may have information of relevant facts. Uncovering lies. Exposing arrogance, greed and collusion. Discovering facts which support long held suppositions. Hundreds of hours spent on the process. The uncertainty. The unexpected.
If iaedp prevails in the lawsuit, it will attempt to continue its existence the best it can. Or if and when the plaintiffs prevail, and a judgment especially on a class wide basis is entered, many certified professionals will be eligible to receive some type of monetary compensation. However, iaedp may not have the financial resources or enough insurance in place to satisfy a large judgment. This will inevitably result in iaedp failing or declaring bankruptcy and the certification program either being adopted by another organization or falling altogether.
In any event, the eating disorder community is at a crossroads. We can only hope that the community finally comes together and proceeds in a direction that is designed to bring collaboration, wisdom and insight. We can only hope.
Your 18-year-old daughter, who is struggling with severe anorexia, desperately needs a higher level of care. Biologically, her organs are failing. You make a claim with your health insurance company. And you receive a denial.
You quickly research and then discover an Ai program utilized by the insurance company made the decision to deny saving your daughter’s life.
Welcome to the world in which we live. Where Ai programs may be making life and death decisions about your loved ones. That is the very harsh reality. So, let’s explore that reality.
First, what is “artificial intelligence?” The term itself is so vague as to be mystifying. What makes it artificial? The fact that human beings invented it? That it is silicone based instead of carbon based? Is the programmed intelligence, which is designed to learn at a rate far faster than humans can possibly comprehend, deemed artificial because it lacks a sentient existence?
Is Ai artificial because whereas it may “learn,” it does not experience the subtle nuances and life experiences which make us all unique? Does Ai have a soul? For that matter, do we?
Regardless, with Ai still being in an early stage of development, and with Ai’s developing interaction with humans, we must find ways to build guard rails so that Ai is not in a position where it could singularly make life and death decisions. Decisions which are often made by health insurance companies when deciding to pay, or not pay, for life saving surgeries or treatment. Or is it already too late?
Imagine if you will, an Ai program being utilized, without human interaction, to review and decide a claim or an appeal of a claim for a higher level of care, or to receive necessary treatment or to receive a life-saving procedure. An Ai program with no human experiences, no ethics, no soul, no subtlety, no morality. To leave our very existence in the hands of a machine, a machine that cannot love, cannot experience sorry, or joy, or happiness, or despair. And yet … that is happening. Today.
In 2020, UnitedHealth Group division Optum acquired naviHealth and its algorithm for predicting care, called nH Predict, which UnitedHealth uses and contracts out to other insurers, including Humana. Multiple industry sources estimate that Optum paid at least $1.1 billion dollars and when considering debt and related financial structuring—the purchase price is estimated to be as high as $2.5billion. When asked by the Guardian, a spokesperson for UnitedHealth Group denied that the algorithm is used to make coverage decisions. [Like when UBH denied it ran its guidelines through its accounting and finance departments?]
UnitedHealth, Humana and Cigna are facing class action lawsuits alleging the insurers unethically relied upon Ai generated algorithms to deny lifesaving care.
One of the lawsuits alleges that Cigna denied more than 300,000 claims in a two-month period. This equates to spending approximately 1.2 seconds for each presumably physician-reviewed claim. Such a practice is aided by algorithms, the lawsuit alleged.
The Cigna lawsuit also alleged that nH Predict had a 90% error rate, meaning nine out of 10 denials were reversed upon appeal – but that vanishingly few patients (about 0.2%) appeal their denied claims, leading them to pay bills out of pocket or forgo necessary treatment.
Appealing denied claims means big business. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that when insureds appeal initial denials administrative costs for insurance providers exceed $7.2 billion annually.
According to a United States Senate Report issued in October 2024, UnitedHealthcare, CVS and Humana – the three largest providers of Medicare Advantage, together provide almost 60% of all Medicare Advantage coverage – but reject prior authorization claims at higher rates using technology and automation. That report can be found here:
To support the implementation of Ai, health insurance companies argue that Ai programs streamline claims processing, more effectively flag fraud, and promise greater speed, efficiency and cost savings. They claim that by automating routine claims, Ai frees up human reviewers to focus on complex or borderline cases that require medical judgment and nuance. (For that matter, don’t all claims require medical judgment?)
Despite its alleged advantages in claims processing, Ai has faced fierce criticism, especially when its role extends to denying coverage or appeals for essential care. Ai is not immune to flaws, as its decisions depend on data quality and programming — both of which can perpetuate mistakes or systemic biases. Garbage in Garbage out.
Many Ai systems operate opaquely, leaving patients, providers, and even insurers unsure how specific decisions are made. This undermines trust and impedes meaningful appeals.
Numerous lawsuits allege that Ai tools prioritize cost-saving over medical necessity. In some cases, Ai has overridden physician recommendations, resulting in denials of rehabilitation, mental health services, or life-saving treatments.
There is a widespread perception—and often a harsh reality—that health insurers prioritize profits above the needs of their insureds. Ai tools, by automating denials or aggressively limiting coverage, can exacerbate this distrust, especially when decisions feel impersonal or unjust.
Critics argue that Ai systems are often deployed as “rubber stamps,” with little or no meaningful physician review—contravening legal and ethical obligations.
Meanwhile, states like California have moved to ban Ai-only coverage denials, signaling a wave of regulatory intervention.
As for those health insurance companies which utilize Ai alone to decide claims or appeals, the major issues focus on:
Risk of Profit-Driven Bias: Ai tools influenced by financial priorities may embed cost-saving incentives that override medical necessity, echoing problems revealed in the Wit v. UBH case.
Lack of Clinical Nuance: Ai lacks the ability to fully understand complex medical contexts or patient histories that human clinicians evaluate.
Transparency and Accountability: Patients have a right to clear explanations and meaningful appeals, which Ai-alone systems often fail to provide.
But that is where we are. Ai is being utilized by insurance companies to decide claims and appeals. Although the insurance companies may deny this fact, it is a reality. Especially since widespread use of Ai in denying claims and appeals will result in much greater profits for these companies.
To counter this reality, the future must be shaped by the following:
Stronger Regulatory Frameworks
States and potentially federal regulators are developing rules to ensure Ai complements—not replaces—human medical judgment. Requirements for physician involvement, transparency, and appeal rights are expected to expand.
Increased Legal Scrutiny
As lawsuits proceed, courts will clarify the legal boundaries of Ai’s role in coverage decisions, particularly under ERISA, Medicare Advantage rules, and consumer protection laws.
Pressure for Transparency and Explainability
Insurers may face mounting demands to disclose how Ai tools function, how decisions are made, and how patients can challenge automated denials.
Smarter, More Ethical Ai Development
Future Ai systems may incorporate safeguards to avoid wrongful denials, improve alignment with medical standards, and enhance explainability.
Ai’s exploding involvement, or interference in our lives will only increase. That is inevitable.
There is the potential that Ai can make health insurance claims processing faster, fairer, and more efficient—but only if deployed responsibly. It must address not only human fallibility but also the systemic distrust stemming from the reality that insurers prioritize profits over patients. Lessons from Wit v. UBH remind us that financial influence over clinical decisions can have devastating consequences, a cautionary tale for Ai implementation.
As courts, lawmakers, and the public demand accountability, the health insurance industry faces a pivotal choice: embrace Ai as a tool to support—not supplant—human expertise, or risk eroding trust and facing costly legal consequences.
The future of Ai in health insurance is not just a technological issue—it is a legal, ethical, and societal issue. Right now, the live of your loved one may very well depend on a machine. On Ai. A lifeless, soulless computer program devoid of all emotion, mercy and humanity.
That is our reality right now. Allow yourself to contemplate that reality and perhaps yes, be afraid. For our future depends on wisdom far greater than humanity has ever demonstrated. Our health depends on it. Our very lives depend on it.
On February 7, 2025, in accordance with the Trump Administration’s mandate to eliminate waste in federal spending, the National Institute of Health (“NIH”) announced it was capping “indirect costs” on federal research grants at 15%. In addition, a number of research projects, both current and future were terminated.
Indirect costs are used to cover research expenses such as equipment and facilities maintenance, IT services, and administrative support. Indirect costs are itemized separately from direct research costs and are often expressed as a percentage. For example, an indirect cost rate of 50% means that for every dollar awarded as part of a research grant for eligible direct costs, the institution would receive an additional 50 cents to cover indirect costs.
But indirect costs are also used to fund another very important aspect of research.
Every university-based study has to go through a rigorous ethics process. All animal studies go through IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee). All human studies through an IRB (Institutional Review Board.)
Not only are studies submitted for a full ethics board review at the beginning of the study, but they must be renewed every year and any deviation from protocol, adverse event or other unforeseen result must be resubmitted and reviewed by the board. These committees include faculty members who receive a minimal salary for their time and include lay members from the community (who are also remunerated).
The review involves a substantial amount of work and basically ensures that animals used in research are being treated humanely and that people are (being treated like animals?). No, that people are treated ethically. The documentation and regulatory aspects are so complex that many universities now have a Regulatory and Compliance Officer to assist in the tracking of all aspects of these research grants.
Without the IRB and IACUC there can be no research. If the university administration decides to “break” the current indirect system, the ethics structures would also break, and this would be another way in which research would screech to a halt.
So, the question must be asked, how did we get here?
In 2023 the NIH invested $35 billion in research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at 2,500 universities/research institutions. Of the $35 billion, $26 billion was for the ‘direct cost’ of the research and $9 billion (26%) was for indirect costs.
In its February 7, 2025, announcement, the NIH said its 15% cap on indirect cost could save $4 billion annually. On the surface, this cap may seem reasonable.
So, why is the 15% cap causing such turmoil in academia?
First, it came from the Trump Administration. Since many people in academia look upon President Trump as evil, or the anti-Christ, or a Fascist or Hitler incarnate, they look upon anything he does as bad for the Republic.
Undoubtedly part of the angst was also caused by the heavy-handed manner in which the announcement was made, and the cuts implemented. Giving universities only one weekend to absorb the news, conduct meetings and conferences, and undertake a search to locate and receive other sources of funding is patently unreasonable. Budgets had been set, scholarships and employment for university professionals had been scheduled in part based on the indirect grant costs. To presume that universities could undertake all actions necessary to continue research projects in the span of 48 hours is unrealistic.
But there are two sides to a coin and two edges to every sword.
So, why did this happen?
Some pundits speculate that DEI is the underlying culprit. And the heavy-handed manner in which DEI has been foisted upon the American public.
DEI is an incredibly nuanced, complex, multi-faceted topic. At its core, it attempts to address the manner in which we, as a just and fair society can and must stride forward into a bold future. A future filled with hope for all. When properly implemented, DEI provides greater opportunities for those who have been traditionally overlooked.
Microsoft created a neurodiversity hiring program targeting individuals with autism and other neurological differences.
Johnson & Johnson invested in a supplier diversity program to support owned by minorities, veterans and people with disabilities.
When implemented by diverse, intelligent persons from both ends of the political spectrum, DEI can be intelligently utilized to provide greater opportunities. That requires collaboration by people of differing opinions and backgrounds.
That is one of the ways where Academia fails.
Academia pushes an identity-based approach to DEI encouraging people to define themselves by race, gender and victimhood rather than by merit and responsibility. This mindset focuses on resentment instead of ambition.
Regarding DEI and equality, Academia and liberals tend to focus on equality of outcome (does everyone have the same things?).
Corporations and conservatives tend to focus on equality of opportunity (is everyone treated the same?).
The undeniable reality is that on its surface and as utilized by Academia, DEI is fundamentally discriminatory. DEI asserts that representation must be based on an end product or result evidencing broad based inclusion regardless of merit. This attempts to address the horrific scourge of past discrimination by engaging in horrific acts of future discrimination.
Under the Biden Administration, DEI and research grants flourished.
However, a society which distorts history is not advancing. It is regressing. One of the great failures of multiculturalism is its rejection of assimilation. The process by which different cultures blend into a shared identity rather than remaining separate factions. We must focus on merit and opportunity. Not grievance.
So, what must be done now?
The old system of applying for and pursuing grants is over. Quite frankly, it should be. The eating disorder research community has suffered far too long at the hands of a radical element which places their social justice and political views over families. Those people who have ignored and derided the medical community in order to showcase their own dysfunctions and inner turmoil.
Tragically, it is now the university research professionals who are paying the price for this ignorance as their research funding has been reduced or eliminated.
In the short term, there is not much the university-based research professionals can do. Except pray that the various pending lawsuits result in favorable outcomes.
Certainly, GoFundMe accounts are not the answer. Unless hundreds of thousands of dollars are contributed through GoFundMe accounts, those GoFundMe efforts approach questionable ethical boundaries. A few thousand dollars will do nothing to replace the lost funding. They are symbolic at best.
But the long term?
First universities and researchers must have a greater understanding of the possible return of investment for grants. Universities must become more like the private sector. They must have vision as to how research is applicable to the understanding and treatment of illnesses in the real world. Not social justice issues. Not radical political issues.
As such, universities must mandate that the focus of research be applied to medically based, science supported issues. A commonly cited factor for NIH allocation decisions is scientific opportunity. Universities and institutes are typically looking for the best and most innovative research.
However, an important question is whether research on the same diseases remains on the forefront of discovery for many years. It is difficult to accept, given the constancy of funding across diseases, that the relative likelihood of scientific breakthroughs varies in the same way across diseases now as it did 10 or even 20 years earlier.
Disease-specific advocacy also plays an important role in NIH funding. Although advocates’ success in garnering congressional support for research can lead to higher overall NIH budgets, most advocacy groups focus on specific diseases. Some of the extra funding that certain diseases obtain could be the result of these efforts.
This means that medical and scientific aspects of an illness must be emphasized and placed at the forefront of a study. Research which involves social justice issues or denying science not only will not get funded, but they cause harm to the community.
Private foundations and large corporations want to know exactly how your research study will improve the lives of their employees or the people their foundation supports.
University professionals must determine the manner in which emerging technologies and synthetically created intelligence platforms will become involved in the subject about which their research addresses. Ai is not just here to stay, but it is growing and learning at an alarming rate. If a researcher does not have a firm grasp on emerging creations and technologies and how that impacts his/her study … they are wasting their time.
Universities can partner with research and development liaison organizations. Those organizations can find suitable collaborative outside entities who will invest money to cover in part, those indirect costs. A failure to do will result in overall failure.
For that matter, there are a number of private equity companies and a few publicly traded companies which own hundreds of mental health treatment centers across the United States. These entities have literally billions of dollars of assets and resources at their disposal. Imagine the epic advances and increased knowledge of eating disorders, including state of the art treatment protocols which could be discovered and implemented through … collaboration. This type of collaborative effort would not only lead to breakthroughs in treatment resulting in a legion of lives being saved, but as another benefit, would result in increased profits for those companies.
There are solutions. Ready solutions. However, finding the right solution can be difficult and confusing.
In order to discover a brave new world, we must embrace strength, resolve, intelligence, collaboration and faith. Without those qualities, we will remain lost. And knowledge and advancement will be stifled.
I was recently advised that articles about IAEDP and Acadia were getting redundant.
So, why continue ?
Regarding Acadia, the answer is quite simple. Because its systemic corruption continues seemingly unabated and its vapid denials and inane posturing have reached an absurd level.
But before going into the most recent damning New York Times investigative article on Acadia, let’s look into the eyes of some of their victims:
Christopher Gardner
Five year old Christopher was left for 8 hours in a transport van at a West Memphis, Arkansas daycare facility owned by Acadia. Workers tried to cover up their gross negligence by signing documents showing that Christopher was taken inside the West Memphis day care center, even though he remained on the van. At least one media outlet reported the temperature in that van rose as high as 141 degrees. Christopher died in that van.
Deborah Cobbs
In May 2024, 20-year-old Deborah Cobbs, died after she threw herself down a staircase. At Timberline Knolls. Police reports indicate that she attempted to run away from the campus twice that very day. Which makes it quite curious as to why she was not being closely supervised.
Tiley McQuern
In January 2023, Tiley McQuern, 50, was found dead in her bed at Timberline Knolls after swallowing too many pills.
Those are just three of the many Acadia victims. Look at their faces. Never forget their faces. Because the faces in those photos are all that is left for their loved ones.
On April 22, 2025, the New York Times published an article about Acadia’s now shuttered and infamous facility, Timberline Knolls. It is entitled, “Suicides and Rape at a Prized Mental Health Center. Timberline Knolls, a mental health center owned by Acadia Healthcare, skimped on staff. Then came a series of tragedies.”
Although behind the New York Times paywall, the good people at the Salt Lake Tribune published the article in its entirety here:
“But dangerous conditions persisted for years at Timberline Knolls, an investigation by The New York Times found, in part because of pressure to enroll more patients without hiring enough employees.”
“Two former residents sued Timberline Knolls last year, claiming that an aide had raped them. Acadia had hired the aide despite a criminal record that included domestic violence and gun charges.” [emphasis added]
“Another resident — a child who was a ward of the state — nearly died after she overdosed on medication that had been left out in a common area, according to former staff members. And two other women died by suicide after being left unsupervised, a rare occurrence at mental health facilities.”
“We were extremely understaffed,” said Cecilia Del Angel, who worked as a behavioral health aide at Timberline Knolls until last July. Several other former employees echoed that sentiment. The patient deaths, Ms. Del Angel said, were “entirely preventable.”
“Illinois regulators had not looked into the suicides. A spokesman for the state’s health department said it did not regulate Timberline Knolls, and the state’s Division of Substance Use Prevention and Recovery had not visited the property since 2019.”
“The problems at Timberline Knolls were part of a nationwide pattern of lapses at Acadia, one of the country’s largest for-profit providers of mental health services, with more than 260 facilities in 39 states, The Times found.”
“Acadia has closed facilities over the past decade after reports of sexual abuse. More than a dozen patients reported sexual assaults at an Acadia psychiatric facility in Utah. At a youth treatment center in New Mexico, patients claimed that staff had sex with them and pushed them to participate in “fight clubs.” And in Michigan, three women said they had been sexually abused by a supervisor at a youth treatment center.”
“In the summer of 2018, patients complained to Timberline Knolls employees that a therapist, Michael Jacksa, had sexually abused them on Timberline’s campus. The facility waited more than three weeks to call the police, doing so only after the patients complained to the state’s substance abuse agency, court records show.”
“Timberline’s leader at the time, Sari Abromovich, said an Acadia executive had told her not to alert the authorities, according to a deposition she gave in a lawsuit later filed by one of the women who was raped.”
“Ms. Abromovich, who was fired in 2018, said she was under daily pressure from corporate managers to fill beds and keep expenses low by skimping on staff.”
“Patient enrollment fell with the news of Mr. Jacksa’s arrest. In the ensuing years, Acadia pressured staff to find new ways to fill beds, according to eight former employees, who spoke on the condition that The Times not publish their names because they still work in the mental health industry.”
“Staff struggled to prevent patients from fighting, harming themselves and escaping the facility. In 2020, the Lemont police were called to Timberline Knolls 222 times, police said. By 2023, that number had soared to 519. No one else in Lemont made more emergency calls.”
“In a brief telephone call with The Times, Eiliana Silva, the director of J.P.’s [rape victim] residential unit, acknowledged that she had heard concerns from staff about Mr. Hampton [the rapist/employee] but said she could not properly supervise him because she was one of only two directors overseeing five lodges. As soon as she heard about J.P.’s complaint, she said, she relayed it to Timberline Knolls’ leadership.”
“At the time Timberline Knolls’ leadership heard the accusations against Mr. Hampton, the staff was still reeling from three other disasters.”
“In January 2023, Tiley McQuern, 50, was found dead in her bed after swallowing too many pills. A staff member told police that although employees were supposed to check on patients, those checks were “not thorough,” police records show.”
“Seven months later, a child, who had been placed at Timberline Knolls by the state’s child welfare agency, was rushed to the hospital after overdosing on medication that a staff member had left in a common area.”
“Then, in May 2024, another resident, 20-year-old Deborah Cobbs, threw herself down a staircase while no one was supervising her and died. She had tried to escape Timberline twice that day, police records show. Ms. Cobbs had also told several people that she was feeling suicidal, according to former employees who worked there at the time.”
So, what was Acadia’s response to this legion of corruption and harm to those entrusted to their care?
“Tim Blair, a spokesman for Acadia, said in a statement that the company had a zero-tolerance policy for behavior that could put staff or patients in danger. “We reject any notion that we put profits over patients,” he said, adding that “complaints and incidents are investigated and addressed.”
“Mr. Blair denied that Timberline Knolls had dangerous conditions and said it had adequate staffing levels.”
Another unidentified Acadia spokesperson said, “The recent New York Times story about Timberline Knolls, a closed Acadia facility, includes material inaccuracies and cherry-picks and conflates historical incidents to paint a false and inaccurate picture of the safety and quality of the care our facilities provide.”
Acadia’s corruption is vast. A report by the National Disability Rights Network detailed allegations of inappropriate physical restraints, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse at for-profit treatment centers, citing examples at Acadia facilities including an incident where a 9-year-old was injected with antihistamines as punishment at an Acadia facility in Montana.
In March 2025, three adolescents filed a lawsuit against Detroit Behavioral Institute, LLC and its owner, Acadia. The plaintiffs allege widespread sexual, physical, and psychological abuse inflicted on dozens of children. In fact, more than 35 people have come forward after they were reportedly abused as children at the Detroit Behavioral Institute between 2005-2022. The lawsuit alleges that the children were groomed, sexually assaulted and those that spoke out were retaliated against.
Acadia’s response to that lawsuit? “The well-being of all patients is of the utmost importance to Acadia Healthcare and its affiliated facilities. We take these allegations seriously. While we can’t comment on specific allegations and patient situations due to privacy regulations, the picture being painted of Acadia and the quality of care provided by our facilities is inaccurate. We intend to defend this case vigorously.”
It is enlightening that Acadia’s public response to both the Timberline Knolls scandals and the horrific allegations against Acadia’s Detroit facility utilize almost identical language … “the picture being painted of Acadia and the quality of care provided by our facilities is inaccurate.
In addition, the same day the New York Times published its story, Acadia released its own statement entitled, “Setting the Record Straight: Acadia is A Leader in Quality, Safe Behavioral Healthcare.”
It should come as no surprise that Acadia once again uses its old stand by line, “Regrettably, a recent media report cherry picked and conflated historical incidents at a closed Acadia facility to paint a false and inaccurate picture of the safety and quality of the care our facilities provide.”
So apparently, medication overdoses causing death while under the watchful eyes of Acadia, two suicides in the facility within a year, a minor taken to a local hospital because of a drug overdose, numerous young women being sexually assaulted and raped, five hundred nineteen (519) 9-1-1 calls within one year all fall into the category of “false and inaccurate picture of the safety and quality of the care our facilities provide.”
So, painting an inaccurate picture? Like this?
Or is the painting inaccurate because it does not nearly portray the numerous additional instances of abuse, misconduct and neglect perpetrated by Acadia?
It seems as if Acadia anticipates these lawsuits and issues the same trite defensive language dripping in lawyer ick. For Acadia, it is merely the cost of doing business with our loved ones being nothing more than corporate commodities.
Acadia’s profiteering at the expense of its patients results in the dirtiest kind of money. And yet, our eating disorder organizations continue to close their eyes and continue to accept Acadia’s dirty money. In February, it was iaedp at its annual symposium.
Next month in San Antonio, it is AED’s turn to turn a blind eye and accept Acadia’s dirty money. In doing so, AED arguably becomes complicit in the following odious, reprehensible acts perpetrated by Acadia and its feckless employees:
Multiple rapes in their treatment facilities located in a number of states;
Multiple sexual assaults in their treatment facilities located in a number of states;
Multiple attempted suicides in their treatment facilities located in a number of states;
Multiple successful suicides in their treatment facilities located in a number of states;
Having your lack of oversight result in the death of a 5 year old child left under your care;
Acadia’s officers and Board of Directors engaged in a scheme to defraud and mislead investors concerning patient care, staffing levels and legal compliance issues;
Acadia and its employees submitting false claims for payment to Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE for inpatient behavioral health services that were not reasonable nor medically necessary;
There are many other woeful, reprehensible, unethical, illegal and criminal acts being perpetrated by this rogue organization. But even all of this is not enough to make eating disorder organizations take notice, stand up, and say enough, no more, no longer will we permit you to abuse the most helpless, vulnerable people in society. We refuse to be part of your misconduct.
Instead, like a common street walker, these organizations stand by with their hand extended willing to participate in any act no matter how vile, demeaning or degrading for its 30 pieces of silver.
Jeffrey Epstein’s international sex trafficking ring was based on his private island in the US Virgin Islands. The conduct of Epstein and his collaborators was horrific and evidenced the worst in human behavior. Those who visited the island, or for that matter, anyone who even associated with Epstein once news of his misconduct began to surface were looked upon as being complicit.
The consequences of being complicit are playing out in courtrooms. As they often do.
The US Virgin Islands sued JPMorgan Chase alleging that Chase facilitated and benefitted from the sex trafficking of young women. Chase filed a counterclaim alleging, “… the US. Virgin Islands was ‘complicit in the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein,’” saying the sex predator gave high-ranking officials money, advice and favors in exchange for looking the other way. The parties settled the case with Chase paying $75 million. Of that amount, $55 million was directed to charities in the US Virgin Islands. [emphasis added]
Twelve (12) victims of Epstein’s filth sued the FBI for the FBI’s “repeated and continued failures, delays and inaction” which allowed Epstein to continue his sex trafficking operation for more than 20 years. [emphasis added]
The German bank, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to victims of Epstein after the victims filed suit. They alleged the bank was complicit in the sex trafficking and chose profit over following the law. [emphasis added]
Epstein’s victims sued Epstein’s personal attorney and accountant alleging that those two professionals were complicit by continuing to conduct business with Epstein and provided additional means by which Epstein could continue his monstrous conduct even after having actual knowledge of his misconduct.
Epstein’s victims sued JPMorgan Chase alleging it was complicit with Epstein allowing him to continue his horrific conduct. Documents produced in the case showed that JPMorgan ignored internal warnings and overlooked red flags about Epstein because he had been a valuable client. As a result, JPMorgan paid $290 million in a settlement agreement to the victims.
A press release from JPMorgan to NPR stated: “We all now understand that Epstein’s behavior was monstrous, and we believe this settlement is in the best interest of all parties, especially the survivors, who suffered unimaginable abuse at the hands of this man. Any association with him was a mistake and we regret it. We would never have continued to do business with him if we believed he was using our bank in any way to help commit heinous crimes.” [emphasis added]
A lesson learned from the Epstein corruption is that knowledge of reprehensible conduct and continued association with a predator equate to acquiescence and being complicit.
Which brings us to iaedp … and Acadia Healthcare. Acadia’s reprehensible conduct has been the subject of widespread publicity. As such, we can and must presume that iaedp has actual knowledge of Acadia’s many unethical and illegal activities.
So why then is iaedp pandering to Acadia, accepting Acadia’s dirty money and like an amoral courtesan, crawling into bed with them?
Iaedp holds its first Symposium AB (After Bonnie) beginning February 21, 2025. As with all organizations which hold a conference, iaedp solicits and receives money from sponsors.
The business relationship between an organization and sponsor should be symbiotic. The sponsoring company provides financial support, goods, or services to the event in exchange for various promotional benefits, such as brand visibility, logo placement, speaking opportunities, or access to the event’s audience. The organization receives funding.
Any reasonable organization would closely vet sponsors to ensure that the sponsors are reputable and have a shared or compatible vision and mission. This duty is incredibly important.
And yet, what are we to make of an organization which has knowledge of numerous instances of unethical, illegal and/or harmful conduct perpetrated by its main sponsor and yet still welcomes them with open arms?
On its Symposium page under sponsors, the very first sponsor listed is … Acadia Healthcare.
This despite the fact iaedp has knowledge that Acadia was eviscerated by the Senate Finance Committee in a damning report in June 2024 evidencing deceit and systemic abuse of patients;
The New York Times published a comprehensive article evidencing that Acadia was committing many wrongful and/or unethical acts towards patients;
Acadia agreed to pay a $19.8 million fine to the Department of Justice and three states;
Acadia agreed to pay another $1.38 million to the United States because of Acadia’s misconduct directed toward employees;
The Veteran’s Administration announced it was conducting its own investigation into Acadia;
The New York Times published a second report on Acadia evidencing that Acadia methadone clinics fraudulently billed Medicaid and other insurers for therapy sessions that did not take place, some clinics accepted patients who were not addicted to opioids to boost patient volume, and dozens of current and former employees at Acadia clinics in 22 states told the Times the clinics sometimes failed to provide adequate counseling to patients receiving treatment for opioid use disorder;
There are now at least four lawsuits filed against Acadia by disgruntled, angry investors. These lawsuits claim that Acadia, as a matter of its business practices and on a corporate wide basis, perpetrated widespread fraudulent acts and engaged in acts of misconduct and malfeasance;
In August of 2024, a civil case was filed alleging that one of Timberline Knolls employees raped a patient in May of last year;
Acadia agreed to pay $1,386,000 to the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to a Cease-and-Desist Order entered on September 9, 2024. It was found that Acadia had, as a matter of its employment practices, violated rules permitting whistleblowers to receive a reward payment for reporting Acadia’s employment practices to the appropriate federal agency;
In May 2019, Acadia agreed to pay the federal government $17 million to settle allegations it defrauded Medicaid in West Virginia;
Since 2000, Acadia has paid approximately $49,000,000 in fines to federal and state agencies for other egregious conduct.
Rape. Sexual abuse. Emotional abuse. Mental Abuse. Fraud on the government. Fraud on families.
Acadia has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to settle lawsuits in which it was found liable for that reprehensible conduct.
And yet, iaedp still embraces Acadia Healthcare with open arms and accepts their dirty money.
With Epstein, banking institutions and third parties were, and are being held accountable as collaborators and being complicit. Because they continued to accept dirty money. Because they profited. Because of their inaction. Because of their association.
The exact same conduct exhibited by iaedp.
However, in the eating disorder community … there is no accountability nor consequences imposed for reprehensible conduct.
The following exchange is attributed [incorrectly] to Winston Churchill:
“Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?” Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… “
Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!”
Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”
Under Ms. Harken’s iron grip, iaedp through its own past misconduct (i.e., tax fraud, unfair and illegal certification program, filing forged documents with the Illinois Secretary of State) clearly established what it is.
So, we should not be surprised that iaedp has chosen to associate itself with one of the most corrupt mental health organizations in the United States. Through its association and acceptance of Acadia’s sponsorship dollars, iaedp is complicit in helping Acadia maintain whatever standing it has in the community.
Iaedp is willing to lie in bed with a corrupt entity so long as it is being paid. Which sounds very similar to the world’s oldest profession.
Now, iaedp has a choice to make.
Does it stand with the families about whom it professes to care? Families in incredible pain?
Or like an amoral courtesan, does it continue to lie with ethically bankrupt predators like Acadia?
Sadly, we all know what iaedp is going to do.
Iaedp had opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to take a stance and at the very least, issue a statement strongly condemning Acadia’s repeated misconduct. Instead, iaedp chose to do nothing. It remained silent. It did nothing. That is … except taking Acadia’s dirty money and giving it a prominent place as a sponsor at its Symposium.
And we are left to wonder … as an amoral courtesan, how much dirty money did it take for iaedp to compromise all principles of decency and sell its soul … assuming it ever had one.
As early as the 8th Century, the “Feast” of Saint Valentine was marked by the Western Church of Christendom in honor of one of the Christian martyr, Valentine.
In ancient Rome, Lupercalia was observed February 13–15 on behalf of Pan and Juno, two pagan gods of love, marriage and fertility.
More recently, in order to generate revenue between Christmas and Easter, companies like Hallmark elevated Valentine’s Day to an international day of love. Approximately 190 million Valentine’s Day cards are purchased. Every kiss begins with K. Restaurants serve small, fixed-price menus at inflated prices. Men shake their heads, discretely breathe heavily and endure the slings and arrows of a corporate manufactured day of greed … I mean love.
But there is an even darker side to this day.
Numerous shootings and tragedies have occurred on February 14. Perhaps the most notorious is The Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929. This was the murder of seven members and associates of Chicago’s North Side Gang. The men were gathered at a Chicago garage on the morning of February 14, 1929. They were lined up against a wall and shot by four unknown assailants, two of whom were disguised as police officers.
Today, a part of this wall, with bullet holes, is on display in the Mob Museum in Las Vegas, Nevada.
And now, another notable event is going to occur on February 14, 2025. On that day, Acadia Healthcare is going to shutter one of its torture chambers … err, treatment centers, Timberline Knolls.
Let’s briefly review events leading up to this closure.
In August 2024, a lawsuit was filed against Timberline Knolls alleging staff member Erick Hampton sexually assaulted a 24-year-old patient, Jane Doe, three times in May 2024. The lawsuit also alleges Timberline Knolls falsely accused the victim of having a secret affair with a staff member and out of fear, she left the facility after less than two weeks. Blaming the victim is always a sound strategy! (rolling eyes emoji here)
On August 21, 2018, Michael Jacksa, then a counselor at Timberline Knolls was arrested and charged with assaulting a 29-year-old patient at Timberline Knolls during two counseling sessions between May and June of 2018. Jacksa was indicated for sexually abusing at least six other former Timberline Knolls.
But the problems are far more widespread.
According to media sources, 546 calls were made to authorities from Timberline Knolls from 2023 – 2024.
Dozens of 911 calls related to criminal sexual abuse or sexual assault at Timberline Knolls were made to authorities since 2018.
With all of the numerous issues involving rape, sexual abuse, sexual assault, inappropriate behavior and lack of oversight, Timberline Knolls still had the audacity to hold itself out as having, “A Timberline Knolls Sexual Abuse Trauma Treatment Center for Women and Girls.”
Just when you think that corporate hypocrisy and reprehensible conduct have reached an all-time low, we discover an even deeper level of hell.
Therefore, we should not be surprised by the closing. After all, it is part of Acadia’s overall corporate business strategy. That is, when a treatment center has too much notoriety, when its liability is too great, you simply shut down that treatment center and move along …
In 2018, Acadia through its wholly owned subsidiary, Ascent Children’s Health Services announced it was closing all ten (10) locations in the State of Arkansas. This closure displaced nearly 1700 children.
The closure was announced after the settlement of a Crittenden County Circuit Court civil lawsuit filed in July 2017 by Ashley Smith, mother of 2-year-old Christopher Gardner. Christopher died June 12, 2017, after being left in a transport van at the West Memphis facility for eight hours. Ascent workers signed documents showing that Christopher was taken inside the West Memphis day care center, even though he remained in the van.
In 2019, a lawsuit was filed against amongst other defendants, Acadia Healthcare. In that lawsuit, a guardian of an adolescent accused the Acadia companies of failing to protect a young girl under their care. The filing states that an employee of one of Acadia’s subsidiary companies repeatedly raped the child in 2018. The jury awarded the plaintiff $485 million dollars in damages.
Acadia Healthcare of course, closed this youth treatment center in New Mexico amid egregious abuse allegations, multiple lawsuits and losing its certification from state regulators.
Acadia’s on-going incompetence, professional negligence and many scandals caused lower-than-expected volume growth. This resulted in a $20 to $30 million reduction in Acadia’s revenue guidance and a $10 to $15 million impact on the company’s EBITDA outlook.
Acadia’s response?
Acadia’s Chief Financial Officer, Heather Dixon stated, “If lower volumes persist, Acadia will reduce facility-level costs accordingly.” This tantamount to the old saying, “The beatings will continue until morale improves!”
Closing a facility is the nuclear level reduction of facility-level costs. A level to which Acadia does not hesitate to implement when its corporate commodities … uh… patients, become too problematic and not profitable enough.
Acadia’s profiteering at the expense of its patients is the dirtiest kind of money. And yet, our eating disorder organizations will close their eyes, hold their noses and continue to accept Acadia’s dirty money.
Perhaps these organizations believe that because the foul stench of the dirty money is covered in shiny wrapping paper, i.e., on the surface it comes from those treatment centers owned by Acadia; McCallum Place, Carolina House, Montecatini and various smaller centers, then they are free to accept revenue built on the backs of suffering people whose lives are worsened by Acadia’s corporate greed.
Those organizations may believe that since they haven’t heard anything unethical or bad about those specific treatment centers, [not that they have investigated] then it is acceptable to continue to associate with them.
These organization’s parochial thinking ignores the harsh reality that Acadia’s mindset is focused on greed and unethical profiteering. These organizations may believe it is acceptable to wait until a patient has been raped, or sexually abused, or mistreated before they take some type of action. And even that may not be enough. After all, when the tsunami of abuse allegations was brought to the public’s attention, when a patient was allegedly raped, not one organization stood up and issued any statement condemning the on-going conduct. Not one!
These organizations have not come to the realization that, “Tattaglia is a pimp. He never could have outfought Santino. But I didn’t know until this day that it was Barzini all along.” Acadia is Barzini. And it will line up against a wall for execution, any of its treatment centers which do not turn a big enough profit.
If those organizations, knowing that the parent company is corrupt, and through demands for third party investigations, increased oversight and stronger vigilance, could have prevented future abuse in those facilities and instead does nothing … DOES NOTHING … they should be held accountable.
They need to understand it was, “Barzini/Acadia all along.” And are you going to collaborate with that type of reprobate?
“Destroy the old you, before it destroys you. It’s not about erasing your history, but rather rewriting it with intention, resilience, and newfound strength. Break down the barriers that prevent you from becoming the best version of yourself. Strive to be better tomorrow than you were today.”
Author Unknown
The book on 2024 is closed and has been placed on the shelf.
Certainly, the book on the Academy for Eating Disorders (“AED”) is closed. In every way possible.
Its flaws and faults are many. Financially being taken advantage of by its “management company” and doing nothing. Emphasizing a radical, leftist agenda. A cowardly refusal to address corruption in the mental health community. A parochial self-important view. All these factors have conspired to push AED to the brink of extinction.
When Your Management Company Holds You Ransom
Virtual, Inc. is AED’s “management company.”
Virtual advertises that it provides the following services: “Our comprehensive services include finance and accounting; global events management; group secretariat support; HR services; leadership and operations consulting; membership management; marketing and creative services; certification and licensure management; communications; and cutting-edge technology solutions.”
So how has Virtual performed?
Under Virtual’s “leadership,” from 2020 through 2023, AED has reported a total combined loss of -$658,156.00.
For this cataclysmic financial performance, Virtual charged AED fees in the amount of $1,780,836.00.
Again …
A financial loss of -$658,156.00.
Management fees of $1,780,836.00.
Ponder that level of incompetence. Of professional negligence. Of malfeasance. And yet, AED stands idly by letting this financial drain happen, year, after year, after year, after year.
After one year alone of having a management company underperform resulting in a six-figure loss to an organization, that organization would undoubtedly take an exhaustive due diligence examination of the management company. But four consecutive years? And to have management fees be approximately three times the loss sustained by AED under that management company’s incompetence? Any rational organization would have long ago unleashed its legal counsel on that management company with the instructions to go medieval on that company.
But AED? It whistles by the graveyard. It does nothing. It continues to allow itself to be exploited and abused. And we are justified in asking one question. A one-word question. That question is … Why?
Even still, AED’s issues and troubles are multifaceted.
AED’s Tribal Echo Chamber is of the Highest Importance
AED has been overrun by radical leftists who place their own outlandish political and social justice beliefs over people who suffer from eating disorders. Even over the financial welfare of its own organization.
In July 2024, AED announced its international conference (“ICED”) was going to take place in San Antonio, Texas in May 2025. In this announcement, AED broadcast its intention of using eating disorders as a platform upon which they intended to continue to propagate its radical political agenda over the priority of research of eating disorders.
AED stated:
“While Board members were excited at the opportunity, there was much concern for the comfort and safety of our attendees considering the political climate in the state of Texas.”
“We understand and respect that some of you will make the decision not to attend ICED 2025 due to its location. We hope that you will continue to support AED, and perhaps consider a donation to one of the many grass roots organizations in San Antonio fighting for equality. Thank you.”
Good Lord. I cannot even begin to fathom how a mental health organization could understand, let alone respect a fear based, cowardly, irrational decision prioritizing a person’s blind allegiance to a political party over their chosen profession.
AED chose to foster a fear based, ideological platform before everything else. To say that AED has betrayed all families who suffer from eating disorders would be charitable.
So, let’s expose the irrationality of AED’s fear based, political agenda and observe its continued march toward irrelevancy and obsolescence.
The Bear is Blue
With regard to ICED in San Antonio, presumably, the AED “professionals” are concerned for their safety and welfare because a majority of Texans voted for Donald Trump for president. Perhaps they believe that all Republicans, or all who voted for President-Elect Trump are inherently evil.
And yet, one of the many things these AED “professionals” got wrong is they did not consider that Bexar County, the county in which San Antonio is located, is overwhelmingly blue… it is a Democratic stronghold. (Oh, and for clarity’s sake, Bexar is pronounced either “Bear” or “Bair,” your choice.)
Let’s review how the denizens of Bexar County voted in the last 5 presidential elections;’:
In 2024, Kamala Harris received 54.9% of the vote in Bexar County;
In 2020, Joe Biden received 58.2% of the vote in Bexar County;
In 2016, Hillary Clinton received 54.6% of the vote in Bexar County;
In 2012, Barack Obama received 51.56% of the vote in Bexar County;
In 2008, Barack Obama received 52.41% of the vote in Bexar County.
Every judge presiding over the district courts in Bexar County (district courts are the courts in which civil and criminal lawsuits are first heard) is a Democrat. Many of these judges ran unopposed.
The mayor, the district attorney, and the county sheriff are all Democrats. 3 of the 4 county commissioners are Democrats. The 4th is a graduate of the Naval Academy, is a 4th generation military veteran, flew the F-18 fighter jet for 10 years during his tours of duty, graduated with an MBA from Wharton and is married with three children. What a scoundrel!
This information raises a number of questions. Why exactly are the members of AED concerned for their safety and welfare when they will be visiting an incredibly diverse city in which Hispanics comprise 59% of the population and the vast majority of the citizens are Democrats?
And why does AED “respect” the decision of its members who choose not to attend because of their narrow political views? If someone can supply an answer which is more accurate that “idiocy,” by all means, let us know.
AED’s short-sightedness is further demonstrated on its DEI position. Society has self-corrected on this topic. DEI is yesterday’s news.
In 2023 – 2024, rational people and companies decided that the quality and integrity of its product were of the utmost importance. Companies like Google, Meta, Walmart, Ford, John Deere, Lowe’s, Harley-Davidson, Molson Coors, Boeing, Toyota, Microsoft and many other companies are scaling back or eliminating their DEI programs. Numerous universities throughout the United States are eliminating DEI programs.
They understand that equal opportunity does not mean equal results.
But AED? No.
AED is doubling down on DEI. It still has its DEI Advisory Committee. This Committee’s purpose is: “The Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Committee is responsible for helping move both our organization and our field in the direction of being more diverse, equitable, and inclusive and strengthening our organization’s policies, initiatives, and programs.”
Notice there is nothing about improving the quality of research being conducted. There is nothing about improving the quality and professionalism of AED’s members. There is nothing about how families will benefit from this Committee.
And still, AED members are concerned about their welfare and safety in San Antonio? Really? While AED is being systematically, financially abused every year to the point of bankruptcy? While AED elevates their social justice clown show over the needs of those who are suffering?
Speaking of Abuse and Misconduct
Perhaps because AED is a victim of financial abuse, AED refuses to speak out on other aspects of abuse and neglect perpetrated against our most vulnerable population. However, AED does embrace those causes which coincide with their radical vision.
On June 5, 2020, AED released a position paper announcing its solidarity with Black Lives Matter and offered insights into tackling “systemic anti-Black racism and White Supremacy within the eating disorder field.”
It should come as no surprise that when the corruption within the leadership of the Black Lives Matter movement was exposed, and the Black Lives Matter movement crumbled and became a shell of that which it aspired to be, AED, as a leftist political organization remained radio silent.
And yet, what is surprising is that as more and more corruption within the mental health and eating disorder fields is exposed by the legacy media, AED again chooses to do and say … nothing.
Corruption, Corruption and AED remains both mute and moot.
The widespread corruption at Acadia Healthcare cannot be denied. Our most vulnerable loved ones are being exploited and in some instances, abused, raped or killed. And still, AED does nothing. And says nothing.
Acadia Healthcare owns McCallum Place, Montecatini, Carolina House and Timberline Knolls. These “treatment centers” allegedly attempt to treat eating disorders. Acadia is a publicly traded company which may end up as the most corrupt mental health organization in United States history.
2024 was catastrophic for Acadia. Acadia was eviscerated by the Senate Finance Committee in a damning report in June 2024 evidencing deceit and systemic abuse of patients; the New York Times published a comprehensive article evidencing that Acadia was committing many wrongful and/or unethical acts towards patients; Acadia agreed to pay a $19.8 million fine to the Department of Justice and three states; Acadia agreed to pay another $1.38 million to the United States because of Acadia’s misconduct directed toward employees; the Veteran’s Administration announced it was conducting its own investigation into Acadia; the New York Times published a second report on Acadia evidencing that Acadia methadone clinics fraudulently billed Medicaid and other insurers for therapy sessions that did not take place, some clinics accepted patients who were not addicted to opioids to boost patient volume, and dozens of current and former employees at Acadia clinics in 22 states told the Times the clinics sometimes failed to provide adequate counseling to patients receiving treatment for opioid use disorder.
There are now at least four lawsuits filed against Acadia by disgruntled, angry investors. These lawsuits claim that Acadia, as a matter of its business practices and on a corporate wide basis, perpetrated widespread fraudulent acts and engaged in acts of misconduct and malfeasance. In August of 2024, a civil case was filed alleging that one of Timberline Knolls employees raped a patient in May of this year.
Rape. Sexual abuse. Emotional abuse. Mental Abuse. Fraud on the government. Fraud on families. And in response to the numerous investigations, fines, settlement agreements, lawsuits and patients being abused, all of which impacted Acadia’s volume and revenue growth, Acadia’s Chief Financial Officer, Heather Dixon stated, “If lower volumes persist, Acadia will reduce facility-level costs accordingly.” That means, the higher paid employees, i.e., medical doctors being laid off.
Profits, profits above all else.
And still, AED does and says nothing. And we must wonder … why?
After all, there is precedence for taking action. When Michael Jacksa’s widespread physical and sexual abuse was exposed at Timberline Knolls, the National Eating Disorder Association returned Timberline Knolls’ annual financial contribution of $10,000.00. NEDA refused Timberline Knolls/Acadia’s dirty money.
However, at ICED 2025, as some AED “professionals” cower in fear concerned for their safety and welfare, undoubtedly Acadia and its subsidiaries, McCallum, Montecatini, Carolina House and Timberline Knolls will proudly display their wares in AED’s exhibit hall. At $3,500 per exhibit table, Acadia will undoubtedly be contributing at least $17,500 to AED’s coffers. [How else will Virtual be paid?]
We have various names for that conduct. Accepting dirty money. Hypocrisy. Lack of integrity. AED refuses to speak out against systemic abuse in the mental health community and all the while is accepting money from a corrupt corporation which abuses patients and has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to resolve lawsuits based on that abuse.
And yet, AED is not finished with its journey leading to its inevitable destruction. Nonetheless, the time has long since passed for AED to either take a stand with those who are abused and fight against corruption … or be part of the scandals, abuse and horrific conduct by cooperating with the perpetrators.
Ethics, Ethics Everywhere and None of it for …?
Since AED will not come to the mountain, the mountain will come to AED.
AED has an Ethics Committee. It’s long past time for AED to start utilizing it. Within one week, information regarding Acadia, its dirty practices and sordid conduct will be submitted to AED’s Ethics Committee. And AED will be faced with what should be a “no-brainer” decision.
AED can choose to support those who are victims by Acadia’s nefarious, illicit conduct. Or they can stand in solidarity with Acadia. Acadia, who abuses the system. Acadia, who abuses our most vulnerable population. Acadia, who abuses and removes hope. Acadia, who abuses and who removes … life.
But choose AED must … and will. And we will know the direction AED chooses. And the ramifications of that choice will determine whether AED remains a viable entity … until at least Virtual gets through with it.
Just when you think that corporate hypocrisy and reprehensible conduct have reached an all-time low, we discover an even deeper level of hell.
The Timberline Knolls Sexual Abuse Trauma Treatment Center for Women and Girls … It leaves one nearly speechless. Nonetheless, let’s review.
In August 2024, a lawsuit was filed against Timberline Knolls alleging staff member Erick Hampton sexually assaulted a 24-year-old patient, Jane Doe, three times in May 2024.
Doe, who has bipolar and borderline personality disorders, was seeking treatment at the facility for suicidal thoughts. Despite reporting the assaults to a staff member via her roommate, no prompt action was taken, which resulted in Jane Doe being raped a third time.
The lawsuit also alleges Timberline Knolls falsely accused Doe of having a secret affair with a staff member and out of fear, she left the facility after less than two weeks. The lawsuit claims the assaults worsened her mental health condition, yet Hampton faces no criminal charges.
And remember, Timberline Knolls’ issues with sexually abusing patients goes back a number of years.
On August 21, 2018, Michael Jacksa, then a counselor at Timberline Knolls was arrested and charged with assaulting a 29-year-old patient at Timberline Knolls during two counseling sessions between May and June of 2018.
Jacksa was accused by patients of digitally penetrating their vaginas and buttocks, putting his hands beneath their clothing, fondling their breasts and forcing them to give him oral sex. During his first bond hearing, Jacksa reportedly admitted to police that he “probably went too far.”
This “probably went too far” conduct manifested itself by him being indicted for his reprehensible conduct directed toward a second victim. According to those charges, between Dec. 1, 2017 and Jan. 10, 2018, Jacksa was “treating” an out-of-state woman for eating disorders, anxiety and past sexual abuse. The patient alleges that Jacksa sexually assaulted her during four therapy sessions at Timberline Knolls. The prosecutor said the second woman came forward after seeing media reports.
According to the prosecutor, at least six other former patients from across the country contacted the Lemont Police Department stating that Jacksa engaged in “inappropriate sexual behavior” during their respective therapy sessions.
But the problems are more widespread.
According to media sources, 546 calls were made to authorities from Timberline Knolls from 2023 – 2024.
Dozens of 911 calls related to criminal sexual abuse or sexual assault at Timberline Knolls were made to authorities since 2018.
These facts are set forth in a CBS news report from the greater Chicago area:
With all of the numerous issues involving rape, sexual abuse, sexual assault, inappropriate behavior and lack of oversight, one would rightly believe that an organization with a systemic problem of horrific patient care, would at least temporarily close the facility and bring in an independent third party to study and review Timberline Knolls’ policies and procedures.
Acadia and Timberline Knolls did not do this.
Instead, Timberline Knolls has the audacity to hold itself out as having, “A Timberline Knolls Sexual Abuse Trauma Treatment Center for Women and Girls.” That can be found here:
A DAD'S JOURNEY WITH EATING DISORDERS 