Seems to me that this gets it backwards. The modern history of intervention and treatment for alcoholism begins in the 1930's with Bill W. and Dr. Bob. They worked out -- by trial, error, and inspiration -- a technique that worked vastly better than anything that had been before. Most (all?) modern medical/psychiatric courses of treatment for alcoholism build on that foundation; many incorporate AA attendance as a basic part of the medical/pyschiatric regime. That doesn't mean they are AA clones, but they are in important respectives AA derivatives.
The real question is, do professionalized/medicalized courses of treatment work better than AA? AA is, after all, free; the docs, shrinks, and social workers are not. AA also is true grassroots. Groups are self-organized, self-running, and self-policing, usually meeting in donated space in back rooms and basements, as opposed to meeting in clinics and offices. The docs, shrinks, and social workers need to show a significant advantage in results to justify themselves, not the other way around.
AA is what it is. Individual groups are free to do whatever they wish. Most are respectful of tradition and stick closely to the 12 Steps and the Big Book, because that is how the founders wrote it down and why tamper with success. After 70 years, that means some of the language and rituals may seem archaic to outsiders. So what? It ain't a mystery cult; go to a meeting and ask anything you want.
Reflecting the time and beliefs of its founders, AA retains a strong non-denominational religiosity. (Individual groups are free to differ.) I suspect that is part of the problem some secularized psychiatric professionals have with it. IMO, that is their problem, not AA's.
#72: respectives = respects. Too much hurry, too little checking.
If you read the piece carefully, you see their data shows that AA doesn't work any better — or worse — than other groups. Another way to put this: the other groups work no better than AA.