Alaska task force advances draft framework for training, certification and safety standards for psychedelic-assisted therapy

A state task force drafting guidance on psychedelic‑assisted therapy advanced a set of draft recommendations Thursday that would lean on existing Alaska licensing boards, recommend defined training and supervised practicum hours for providers, establish a certification track for non‑licensed facilitators, and attach an ethics and grievance framework to provider oversight.

The recommendations, discussed during a virtual meeting chaired by Anna Brawley, propose that Alaska’s Medical Board and Board of Nursing prepare advisory guidance if FDA‑approved psychedelic medicines are rescheduled for medical use, and that the Controlled Substances Advisory Committee be engaged in any regulatory changes. Task force members emphasized that provider training, clinical evaluation and safety protocols must be explicit and that some roles could be certified without a professional license.

Task force members said the draft was meant to capture current best practices while remaining adaptable to federal guidance and changes in the evolving clinical field.

Members discussed three broad practitioner tracks in the draft matrix: an entry‑level non‑degreed “psychedelic facilitator” attached to a clinic or training center; a certified psychedelic‑assisted therapy practitioner who is a licensed clinician with additional coursework and supervised practicum; and recognition pathways for traditional healing practitioners. The draft references comparable elements in Colorado law and Alaska’s existing Behavioral Health Certification program, recommending a curriculum that covers trauma‑informed care, ethics, cultural competency and safety protocols.

“We recommend training and a certification pathway,” said Doctor Lawrence, summarizing draft edits he proposed to tie recommendations to existing regulatory bodies. He recommended specifying the Alaska State Medical Board, Board of Nursing and the Controlled Substances Advisory Committee as places to coordinate. Glenn, another task force member, noted pharmacy boards should be included should state bills expand pharmacists’ authority, saying, “If Senate Bill 137 or House Bill 195 were to pass, pharmacists will have the ability to prescribe and administer controlled substances as well as dispense them.”

Members debated whether prescribing authority for psychedelic medicines should be automatic for any practitioner already authorized to prescribe controlled substances or whether states should require an added endorsement showing completion of specialty training. Laurie warned against uncertain qualifiers in the draft language, saying “words like legitimate, can be points of controversy,” and several medical members urged that additional, formalized training will likely be needed.

Doctor DeMolina, who drafted a detailed “best practices” section, described the model used in phase‑3 clinical trials and said clinical care should emphasize preparation, supervised medicine sessions and integration therapy. “It’s psychedelic‑assisted psychotherapy, not psychotherapy‑assisted psychedelics,” DeMolina said, adding that integration sessions and trauma‑informed clinical skills are central to the therapy model.

On credentials and hours, members discussed standards used elsewhere: a 150‑hour curriculum cited at several training programs and by Colorado law, plus practicums (Colorado’s example cited 40 hours of supervised practicum and 50 hours of consultation). Task force members did not finalize numeric requirements; several said the group should present the matrix as an example and ask that future rule‑making or legislation refine exact hours and supervision models.

The draft also recommends an ethics code specific to psychedelic practice and suggests including recognitions such as the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) code as examples. Doctor Lindquist urged that any code be linked to licensure or certifying bodies so there is an enforceable grievance pathway.

Members also considered access and rural delivery. Telehealth and clinician partnerships were presented as ways to reach Alaska’s remote communities, with multiple members noting the need for “boots on the ground” providers who could be trained locally or serve as facilitators under supervision. The draft includes a proposed role for traditional healing practitioners as members of multidisciplinary teams when chosen by patients.

No final regulatory decisions were adopted at the meeting; members directed staff to refine the draft, consolidate informational material versus formal recommendations, and circulate a public comment version.

Ending: The task force agreed to circulate the redlined draft and a public outreach flyer and to seek public comment before further refinement and any submission to the Legislature or rule‑making bodies.