...so why am I so cynical about being optimistic for an actual consumer-beneficial outcome in cases like these?
Insurance companies like scans from MRI tests, not reports written from mental health consultants.
These are some of our most vulnerable people. We need to take care of them. It's less competitive as a business to do so.
[edit - like much of mental health issues, 'success' is difficult to define, so outcome based measurement is difficult.]
In your opinion, in the facilities such as those discussed in the article and ones like them, would physical inspections address the more egregious cases? Are run down facilities, lack of sanitation, etc., enough to add a location (and operators) to an interstate "do not process insurance claims" blacklist? More regulation isn't the answer for everything, certainly, but as you stated, we are talking about exceptionally vulnerable people.
Or is the stigma of addiction and mental health issues the root cause? Would this type of regulatory pressure be DOA because regulators, as people themselves, often believe addiction is a moral failing and not a health consideration?