A new study by Epic Research found that diagnoses of gambling disorder rose by more than 60 percent in the 39 states that have legalized sports betting since a 2018 Supreme Court decision cleared the way for online sportsbooks. The study analyzed electronic health records from more than 197 million U.S. adults aged 18 and older who had at least one qualifying medical visit between January 2018 and March 2026.

In states that legalized sports betting, the quarterly rate of diagnosed gambling disorder climbed from 3.0 per 100,000 patients in early 2018 to 4.8 per 100,000 in early 2026, an increase of about 61 percent. Over the same period, the 11 states that did not legalize sports betting saw diagnoses fall from 3.1 per 100,000 to 2.2 per 100,000, a decrease of about 29 to 30 percent.

The study found significant differences by age and sex. Adults aged 30 to 49 had the highest overall rate of gambling disorder, reaching 5.8 per 100,000 by early 2026. The largest proportional increase was among adults aged 18 to 29, whose rate more than doubled over the study period. Men were diagnosed far more often than women across every age group, with the gap widest among adults under 50. Among males aged 18 to 29, the rate reached 7.7 per 100,000 in 2026, compared to 1.0 per 100,000 for females in the same age range.

Researchers noted several important limitations. Gambling disorder is widely under-recognized in clinical care, so the numbers likely represent a floor rather than the true population prevalence. Changes in health care delivery, the expansion of telehealth during the Covid pandemic, greater clinician awareness, and changes in diagnostic coding practices may have affected diagnosis rates over time. Because states legalized sports betting at different times and online prediction markets operate across state lines, the study cannot pin the trends to any single legal event. The data came from the Cosmos dataset, which includes more than 304 million patient records from 2,000 hospitals and over 47,000 clinics across all 50 U.S. states and several other countries. Two independent teams conducted the research and reached similar conclusions.

Harry Levant, director of gambling policy at the Public Health Advocacy Institute, called the findings extremely important evidence that legalization and the nature of online gambling are exposing younger and more vulnerable people to a highly addictive product. Rutgers University professor Mark van der Maas, who studies gambling and suicide, said increasing access to gambling tends to increase related harms, and that the findings align with other research showing more people seek help in states where sports betting is legal.

The American Gaming Association, a trade group representing sportsbooks and gambling companies, pushed back against the study's implications. The group argued that the rise in diagnoses reflects greater awareness and screening rather than a growing underlying problem, and said decades of research have found no increase in problem gambling rates as legal gaming has expanded. The association stated the industry invests around $500 million each year in education, research, and support for those affected by problem gambling.

However, treatment providers reported a noticeable increase in referrals and patients seeking help. Experts cautioned that the true scope of the problem is likely much larger than the data captures, because only an estimated 3 to 10 percent of people with gambling disorders actually access treatment services. Other recent studies have linked the legalization of online sports gambling to increases in bankruptcies, debt, and credit card delinquencies, along with decreases in credit scores and savings.

The gap between states that legalized sports betting and those that did not may be narrowing as unregulated prediction markets grow in popularity. These platforms allow people to place wagers on sports events regardless of state law, typically set a minimum age of 18 rather than 21, and are not regulated by states as gambling companies. Former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin warned that problematic gambling behaviors may take years to emerge and predicted a further spike in the coming years.

Original Sources/Tags: nbcnews.com, nbcnews.com, epicresearch.org, ibtimes.com, newsmax.com, aol.com, jezebel.com, the-independent.com, (covid), (telehealth), (bankruptcy)

This article provides some useful information but limited actionable help for a normal person. A reader can learn that gambling disorder diagnoses have risen in states with legalized sports betting and that young adults are most affected. However, the article does not give clear steps a person can take if they or someone they know might have a gambling problem. It mentions that only 3 to 10 percent of people with gambling disorders access treatment, but it does not tell the reader how to find treatment, what questions to ask a doctor, or what warning signs to watch for in daily life. The article refers to hotlines and treatment in general terms but does not provide specific resources a person could use immediately.

The educational depth is moderate. The article explains that diagnoses rose from 3.0 to 4.8 per 100,000 people and that this represents a 60 percent increase, which gives the reader a sense of scale. It also explains that changes in awareness, screening, and coding practices may affect the numbers, which helps the reader understand that the data is not simple. However, the article does not explain how a reader should interpret these statistics in their own life. It does not teach what a gambling disorder looks like in practice, how it develops, or how it differs from casual betting. The article mentions that online betting platforms have expanded since 2018, but it does not explain how these platforms work or what features might make them more addictive.

Personal relevance is meaningful for some readers but not all. The information matters most to people who live in states where sports betting is legal, who bet on sports themselves, or who have family members who bet regularly. For these readers, the article could prompt useful reflection on their own habits or concern for loved ones. For a reader who does not gamble and has no contact with gambling, the relevance is smaller. The article does connect to money and health by mentioning bankruptcies, debt, and credit problems, which are real consequences that affect daily life. This gives the information some weight even for readers who do not gamble directly.

The public service function is present but weak. The article does not give safety guidance or emergency information. It does not explain what a person should do if they suspect they have a gambling problem, how to talk to a family member about gambling, or how to find local help. It mentions that treatment providers are seeing more patients, but it does not guide the reader toward those providers. The article serves mainly as a report on research findings rather than as a tool to help the public act responsibly.

There is no practical advice in this article for an ordinary reader to follow. The article describes a problem and presents competing explanations, but it does not tell the reader what to do with the information.

The long term impact of reading this is modest. It may help a reader recognize that legal gambling can carry real risks, which could influence their decisions about whether to bet or how to monitor their own behavior. It may also help a parent or family member understand why a young adult might be vulnerable. However, the article does not give the reader tools to evaluate their own risk, set limits, or find help if needed.

The emotional impact is mixed. The article presents concerning data, which could create worry or anxiety, especially for people who gamble or who have family members who gamble. It does not offer a constructive response to that worry. A reader who feels concerned after reading this article would not find guidance on what to do next. The article does not create panic, but it also does not calm or empower the reader.

The language is mostly measured and not strongly clickbait. The phrase "more than 60 percent increase" is attention-grabbing but is based on the data presented. The article does not use exaggerated or repeated claims to maintain attention. It presents both the research findings and the industry's response, which gives some balance. However, the article leans slightly toward emphasizing harm by placing the industry's response after the concerning data and by ending with a warning about future spikes.

The article misses several chances to teach or guide. It does not explain what gambling disorder looks like in everyday life, how to recognize it early, or how to talk to someone about it. It does not explain how to find treatment, what types of treatment exist, or what questions to ask a health care provider. It does not teach the reader how to evaluate their own gambling habits or set personal limits. It also does not explain how to compare the risks of legal versus unregulated platforms in practical terms.

Concrete guidance based on universal principles that readers can apply regardless of location includes learning to recognize when a habit is becoming a problem by paying attention to whether it interferes with sleep, work, relationships, or money. If you or someone you know is gambling, start by tracking how much time and money is spent on it each week. Writing these numbers down makes the behavior visible and easier to evaluate. Set a clear limit before you begin any gambling activity, and treat that limit as a rule you do not break. If you find yourself exceeding your limit regularly, that is a sign to stop and seek help. If you are concerned about someone else, choose a calm moment to express your concern without blaming or shaming. Focus on specific changes you have noticed, such as money problems or mood changes, rather than making general accusations. Learn what resources are available in your area before a crisis occurs. This could include asking your doctor, searching for local mental health services, or calling a national helpline. Having this information ready makes it easier to act when needed. Recognize that industries that profit from gambling have a reason to downplay harm, and that advocates who want stricter rules have a reason to emphasize it. When you hear strong claims from either side, look for independent research and ask what evidence supports the claim. If you are considering gambling, treat it as entertainment with a fixed cost, not as a way to make money. The odds are designed so that most people lose over time, and chasing losses is one of the most common paths to serious problems. Prepare a simple plan for what you will do if gambling starts to feel out of control. This could include stopping all betting, talking to a trusted person, and contacting a counselor. Having a plan before a problem grows makes it easier to act quickly and calmly.

The text uses the phrase "more than 60 percent increase" to make the rise in gambling disorder diagnoses sound very large and alarming. This strong number pushes the reader to feel that legalized sports betting is directly causing a big public health crisis. The bias here helps the side that wants stricter gambling rules by making the harm seem bigger than the raw numbers alone might suggest. The words are chosen to create worry and urgency, which can shape how the reader views the issue before they consider other explanations.

The text says the American Gaming Association "argued that the rise in diagnoses reflects greater awareness and screening rather than a growing underlying problem." This is a possible strawman because it presents the industry's view in a way that makes it sound like they are dismissing real harm. The text does not explore what evidence the association uses to support its claim, which makes its position easier to attack. By framing it as just an argument without details, the text nudges the reader to see the industry as self-serving and not trustworthy.

The text uses the phrase "unregulated prediction markets" to describe platforms that let people bet on sports outside state law. The word "unregulated" carries a negative feeling, suggesting danger and lawlessness, even though the text does not prove these platforms cause more harm than legal ones. This word choice helps the side that wants more control over gambling by making these markets seem risky and out of control. It hides the fact that some people might see them as a legitimate alternative to state-run systems.

The text says "only a small fraction of people with gambling disorders, estimated at 3 to 10 percent, actually access treatment services." This fact is used to suggest the problem is much bigger than the data shows, which pushes the reader to think the crisis is being underestimated. The bias here helps treatment providers and advocates who want more funding and attention for gambling disorder. It hides the possibility that the low treatment rate might also reflect that not all diagnosed cases are severe or that some people recover without formal help.

The text mentions that "changes in health care delivery, the growth of telehealth during the Covid pandemic, greater awareness among clinicians, and changes in coding practices may have contributed to some of the differences between states." This sentence uses soft words like "may have contributed" and "some of the differences" to downplay other possible explanations for the rise in diagnoses. The bias here helps the side that wants to blame legalization by making other factors seem less important. It hides the chance that these changes could explain a large part of the increase, not just a small one.

The text says "Experts cautioned that only a small fraction of people with gambling disorders, estimated at 3 to 10 percent, actually access treatment services, meaning the true scope of the problem is likely much larger than the data captures." This sentence uses the word "meaning" to present a guess as if it is a fact. The bias here helps those who want to raise concern about gambling by making the problem seem bigger than what the numbers show. It hides the fact that the estimate is just a guess and that the real scope could be smaller or different than the text suggests.

The text says "Former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin warned that problematic gambling behaviors may take years to emerge and predicted a further spike in the coming years." This sentence uses a prediction from one person to make the future sound certain and scary. The bias here helps the side that wants more rules on gambling by making it seem like the worst is still coming. It hides the fact that predictions can be wrong and that other experts might see the future differently.

The text says "The American Gaming Association, representing sportsbooks and gambling companies, argued that the rise in diagnoses reflects greater awareness and screening rather than a growing underlying problem." This sentence uses the word "representing" to remind the reader that the group speaks for companies that make money from gambling. The bias here helps the side that is against the gambling industry by making the group's words seem less trustworthy. It hides the possibility that the association's view could be based on real evidence and not just self-interest.

The text says "These platforms typically set a minimum age of 18 rather than 21 and are not regulated by states as gambling companies." This sentence uses the comparison between 18 and 21 to make the platforms seem less safe for young people. The bias here helps the side that wants stricter age rules by making 18 seem too young for gambling. It hides the fact that in many places 18 is the legal age for other adult activities and that the text does not prove these platforms cause more harm than legal ones.

The text says "Other recent studies have linked the legalization of online sports gambling to increases in bankruptcies, debt, and credit card delinquencies, along with decreases in credit scores and savings." This sentence uses the word "linked" to suggest a direct cause between legal gambling and money problems. The bias here helps the side that wants to show gambling is harmful by making the connection seem clear and proven. It hides the fact that "linked" does not always mean one thing caused the other and that other factors could be involved.

The text conveys several emotions that work together to shape how the reader views the rise in gambling disorder diagnoses and the debate around legalized sports betting. The most prominent emotion is concern, which appears throughout the text in multiple forms. The opening sentence uses the phrase "risen sharply" and "more than 60 percent increase" to create a sense of alarm about the growing number of gambling disorder diagnoses. This concern is strong and serves to grab the reader's attention immediately, framing the issue as urgent and worthy of serious attention. The purpose is to make the reader feel that something significant and troubling is happening, which sets the tone for everything that follows.

A deeper layer of worry emerges when the text discusses the impact on young adults and men. The phrase "the biggest increase was seen among young adults ages 18 to 29, with men disproportionately affected" carries emotional weight because it highlights a vulnerable group. The concern here is moderate to strong and serves to make the reader feel protective or uneasy about the wellbeing of younger people. This emotion guides the reader to see the issue not just as a statistic but as a problem affecting real people in a formative stage of life. The mention of adults ages 30 to 49 having the highest overall rate adds to this worry by showing that the problem spans multiple generations.

Fear or apprehension appears when the text discusses the expansion of online betting platforms and their connection to gambling harm. The Rutgers professor's statement that "increasing access to gambling tends to increase related harms" carries a tone of warning. This fear is moderate in strength and serves to make the reader feel that the situation could get worse if nothing changes. The purpose is to create a sense of urgency about addressing the problem before it grows larger. The mention of unregulated prediction markets adds to this fear by suggesting that people can easily bypass state laws, making the problem harder to control.

A sense of frustration or dissatisfaction appears in the description of how few people with gambling disorders actually receive treatment. The phrase "only a small fraction" and the estimate of "3 to 10 percent" carry emotional weight because they suggest a system that is failing to help those in need. This frustration is moderate and serves to make the reader feel that more should be done to connect people with care. The purpose is to highlight a gap between the size of the problem and the response, which can motivate the reader to support better access to treatment.

Caution or carefulness appears when the text discusses possible explanations for the rise in diagnoses. The phrase "may have contributed to some of the differences between states" uses soft language to acknowledge that the data is not simple. This caution is mild to moderate and serves to show that the researchers are being thoughtful rather than jumping to conclusions. The purpose is to build some trust in the study by showing that it considers multiple factors, even as the overall message still points to a serious problem.

A sense of warning or foreboding appears at the end of the text when former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin predicts "a further spike in the coming years." This warning is moderate to strong and serves to make the reader feel that the worst may not be over. The purpose is to keep the reader engaged and concerned, suggesting that action is needed now to prevent future harm. This emotion leaves the reader with a lingering sense of unease rather than resolution.

These emotions work together to guide the reader toward viewing legalized sports betting as a growing public health problem that needs attention. The concern and worry make the reader feel the issue is serious, while the fear about expanding platforms and future spikes creates urgency. The frustration about low treatment rates pushes the reader to see the need for better support systems. The caution about other explanations adds a small measure of balance, but the overall emotional arc leans heavily toward concern and warning. The reader is meant to finish the text feeling that this is a problem worth paying attention to and that more action may be needed.

The writer uses several tools to increase emotional impact. One tool is the use of strong numbers and percentages, such as "60 percent increase," "3.0 per 100,000 to 4.8 per 100,000," and "3 to 10 percent" accessing treatment. These numbers make the claims feel concrete and measurable, which strengthens the reader's emotional response by giving them something specific to react to. Another tool is the contrast between states that legalized sports betting and those that did not, where diagnoses fell by 30 percent. This comparison makes the problem feel more dramatic by showing a clear difference between two groups. The writer also uses quotes from experts and officials, such as the Rutgers professor and Matthew Platkin, to add authority and emotional weight to the warnings. These voices make the concerns feel more real and urgent because they come from people with knowledge and experience. The mention of vulnerable groups, such as young adults and men, adds a personal dimension to the data, making the reader feel more connected to the issue. The repetition of the idea that the problem is growing and that more harm may come keeps the reader focused on the seriousness of the situation. These tools work together to create a message that is both informative and emotionally compelling, drawing the reader in while encouraging them to view the issue as a matter of public concern.