New Mexico Medical Psilocybin Program · Advisory Board
Updated July 25, 2026.
A specialization would sit on top of a core permit rather than replace it. Nothing here is in the published rule. This records what was raised, by whom, and where it stands.
Members discussed whether a provider who reaches one of the three core permits could then add a route for a specific qualifying condition. End-of-life care led the discussion because it is furthest along. The committee treats it as one of four qualifying-condition domains, each the same shape.
The discussion framed a specialization as an endorsement carried on top of an existing role, not a new license. The same end-of-life competency could sit with a Clinician, a Practitioner, or a Guide or Facilitator, depending on who carries it.
Dom, Department of Health: creating diagnosis-specific licensure is logistically difficult, since a group session with more than one qualifying condition would require every facilitator to hold every matching certification. The department's stated preference was endorsements and best-practice recommendations rather than a specialization mandate.
Larry Leeman: pointed to continuity-of-care models, including death doulas who stay through the journey and a Space Attendant who provides continuity, as an example of why the competency travels with the role rather than defining a separate license.
Source: End-of-Life Care committee meeting, July 16, 2026; positions attributed to the members who stated them. How specialization sits on core eligibility is on Who can qualify.
Whether specialization hours are written into the core requirements for everyone, or layered on as a separate add-on, was left open.
Larry Leeman: include the hours in New Mexico's core program, given that end-of-life is one of four qualifying conditions in the state.
Christine and others: offer it as an adjunct add-on, noting that end-of-life work calls for a disposition not suited to every practitioner.
Gregory Evans: keep the core robust and specializations external as add-ons, while considering baking the baseline of all four qualifying-condition domains into the general curriculum.
Jamie: existential and spiritual themes run through all psilocybin work, not only end-of-life, so a baseline competency there fits every facilitator.
Source: End-of-Life Care committee meeting, July 16, 2026.
Specialization hours: a proposed addendum Discussed July 16
The discussion treated hours toward a specialization as an addendum on top of the core totals, not folded into them. End-of-life care is the one domain with a proposed curriculum; PTSD, substance use disorders, and treatment-resistant depression were treated as the same shape, without a curriculum yet.
Core baseline
As published July 23
Facilitator: 35 didactic + 100 practicum. Practitioner: 35 didactic + 120 practicum. These are the core figures on Training hours, as published on July 23.
End-of-life addendum Proposed
Added on top of the core, open range
15 to 40 hrs
The committee has worked toward 15 to 20 hours. Gregory Evans floated a wider range, roughly 20 to 40. Presented here as an open range, not a set number.
Source: End-of-Life Care committee meeting, July 16, 2026; hour ranges attributed to the committee and to Gregory Evans. Core figures: published rule pp.11–13.
The proposed end-of-life curriculum Presented July 16
Jenn presented a proposed nine-session curriculum, about 17 hours as drafted, within the committee's 15 to 20 range. It is a proposal under discussion, not a settled requirement. The central competency named in the deck is the worker's ability to reflect on their own relationship with death, grief, and spirituality.
| Session domain | Hours | Primary focus |
|---|---|---|
| Client mindset in serious illness and end-of-life | 2.0 | Existential distress, mortality awareness, anticipatory grief |
| Medical complexity and safety | 1.5 | Drug interactions, contraindications, symptom burden |
| Medical complexity and safety | 1.5 | Serious-illness considerations, consultation thresholds |
| Spiritual assessment and meaning-making | 2.0 | Meaning, suffering, transcendence, spiritual inquiry |
| Grief, loss, and bereavement | 2.0 | Anticipatory grief, bereavement, caregiver grief |
| Family and relational systems | 1.5 | Family conflict, caregiver burden, support networks |
| Adapting facilitation for end-of-life care | 3.0 | Preparation, pacing, accessibility, home and support planning |
| Ethics, culture, equity, informed consent | 1.5 | Vulnerability, consent, cultural humility, boundaries |
| Interdisciplinary collaboration and sustainable practice | 2.0 | Team-based care, burnout, grief exposure, reflective practice |
| Nine sessions | 17.0 | Within the committee's 15 to 20 range |
Source: "Proposed Adjunct Training in End-of-Life Psychedelic Care," presented by Jenn, End-of-Life Care committee meeting, July 16, 2026. Hours and domains from the presented session and assessment matrix.
Test out, or credential out. Whether a practitioner already specialized in palliative care could satisfy the requirement through existing expertise, rather than repeating hours, was flagged for the training committee.
What a specialization hour is, and what readiness means. The discussion did not define what counts toward a specialization hour, or how a resident's readiness to carry the specialization would be judged.
The practicum progression. The committee's strong view was that end-of-life is not an appropriate starting population for a practicum; a resident should gain experience with other populations first. A proposed progression ran from resident, to co-facilitator, to supervised primary. The steps and thresholds were left open.
Source: End-of-Life Care committee meeting, July 16, 2026; positions attributed to the members who stated them. Terminology follows the site convention: "resident" and "Space Attendant."
Where end-of-life sits in the published rule. The curriculum at 7.35.3.18 (C), p. 11 lists seventeen required subjects and none of them is end-of-life care. Denali Wilson asked on July 17 that end-of-life, suicidality, substance use disorder and PTSD be added as didactic requirements; Chris Caldwell argued for nineteen or more live instruction hours, and Larry Leeman supported roughly ten to fifteen in the core. None appears in the text published on July 23.