Alaska task force weighs licensing, training and endorsement options for psychedelic-assisted care

The Alaska Psychedelic Policy Task Force spent much of its meeting discussing how the state should license and certify clinicians and nonlicensed facilitators if psychedelic medicines become approved and rescheduled.

Task force members debated two principal approaches: allow any provider already authorized to prescribe controlled substances to deliver treatment within their scope of practice, or require an added endorsement that documents specific training. Dr. Lawrence summarized the primary regulatory choice as whether authorization should rest on “scope of practice” or an endorsement tied to extra training. Glenn, a task force member, said the task force should consider pharmacists if pending bills (Senate Bill 137 or House Bill 195) expand pharmacists’ authority to prescribe and administer controlled substances.

Members cited models from other states when discussing requirements. Dr. DeMolina pointed to precedents such as Colorado’s framework and academic programs (Naropa University, the California Institute of Integral Studies and University of California Berkeley) that use roughly 150 contact hours, and to Colorado’s optional 40 hours of supervised practicum and 50 hours of consultation as guardrails. “Colorado requires a minimum of 150 hours,” Dr. DeMolina said, noting that supervised practicum and consultation hours were helpful safeguards. Several members suggested that Alaska could adopt a similar baseline but preserve flexibility if federal guidance (FDA/DEA) sets training standards.

On endorsements versus default prescriptive authority, task force members were split. Glenn offered an “alternative” recommendation that providers gain an extra endorsement added to their license after demonstrating training, similar to permits that dentists obtain to provide sedation. Dr. DeMolina and others urged that some form of additional training be recommended for prescribers, with Dr. DeMolina saying the group should treat the care model as “psychedelic assisted psychotherapy, not psychotherapy assisted psychedelics.” Dr. Lawrence proposed that the task force explicitly recommend training content while recognizing the group could defer to any federal guidance that later emerges.

The draft credential matrix circulated by Dr. DeMolina proposed three tiers: (1) entry-level psychedelic facilitator (nondegreed), (2) certified psychedelic-assisted therapy practitioner (licensed clinicians such as LPC/LCSW/MD with added coursework), and (3) traditional healing practitioners with culturally specific criteria. The facilitator track included examples such as a GED minimum, 150 contact hours of training, 40 hours of supervised practicum and 50 hours of consultation in the Colorado model, while the licensed-practitioner track emphasized 150 contact hours tied to pharmacology, trauma-informed care and integration techniques. Several members said the matrix should be moved to an appendix or presented as an example rather than adopted verbatim until the task force can vet each item in detail.

Members repeatedly noted dependence on federal action: if the FDA approves a medication and the DEA reschedules it, state boards (Medical Board, Board of Nursing, Board of Pharmacy, Controlled Substances Advisory Committee) will have an implementation role. Anna Brawley, staff coordinating the draft, said she would revise language to capture the group’s consensus points and circulate an updated draft for review.

Ending: The task force did not vote on a single, final licensing framework at the meeting. Members instead directed staff to clean up the draft, present the credential matrix as an example or appendix, and circulate a revised draft for public comment and further review.