Real-world research,
built for public benefit.
We help move the most important questions about psychedelic care — who gets access, what it costs, what outcomes matter, and how to make it safer — from early ideas into ethical, fundable, measurable studies. Especially where commercial incentives fall short.
Why this matters
For fifty years, promising medicine was kept from the public. We're changing how that medicine gets studied.
Many of the most important questions in psychedelic care will never be answered by commercial incentives alone. The most-studied compounds are naturally occurring or off-patent — so traditional pharmaceutical investment largely passes them by. Meanwhile, the FDA-track path to a single approval can cost hundreds of millions, even a billion dollars.
Our Research Incubator exists to ask the public-benefit questions instead: Who gets access? What does care cost? What outcomes matter? How can services be safer? Can state-regulated models generate credible real-world evidence — the kind payers, policymakers, and health systems need before they'll support coverage? We don't just fund isolated studies. We help build the research, measurement, and policy infrastructure that lets community-based psychedelic care become equitable, accountable, and — eventually — reimbursable.
The commercial pathway
How most medicine reaches approval
The public-benefit pathway
What SEF helps make possible
This is a complement to FDA-track research — not a replacement for it.
Test your instinct
FDA pathway vs. the state model — who actually gets care?
Fifteen quick questions, built from the data on this page plus a few peer-reviewed sources. Guess first — the answers reveal why the FDA pathway, though essential, is narrow by design, and why the state-regulated model can reach far more people, far sooner.
Each answer notes its source. Figures are illustrative of the access gap, not precise forecasts — eligibility, capacity, and coverage all shape who is reached.
A record of firsts
In under three years, Oregon became the proving ground — and our studies were among the first to run inside it.
Hover or tap a card to see the study behind each first.
First clinical study inside a state-regulated psychedelic program
The studyLow-Income Group Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy for DepressionSee the studyFirst study focused on a low-income population
The studyThe same depression study — built for people facing financial barriers (n=19, HAM-D d=1.89)See the studyFirst study on Alcohol Use Disorder in the model
The studyCommunity Impact Pilot — AUD, with the Healing Advocacy Fund, delivered at InnerTrek with People ScienceSee the studyFirst to link real healthcare costs to psychedelic care
The studyORCHID — UC Berkeley & UCSF, linking psilocybin care to real medical claimsSee the study"It was a life-changing healing experience, and one that would have been quite different had I taken the do-it-yourself home route."— Henry W. · Participant, SEF & Healing Advocacy Fund–supported Oregon alcohol-use study
The Imperative for Economic Evaluation in Psychedelic-Assisted Therapies
Featured paper
The case for asking not just whether psychedelic care works — but what it costs, and who it reaches.
In 2026, SEF Executive Director Nathan Howard co-authored The Imperative for Economic Evaluation in Psychedelic-Assisted Therapies — a paper arguing that psychedelic care must be evaluated not only for clinical promise, but for affordability, access, and public value. Nathan's contribution focuses on the funding gap in psychedelic research, and the opportunity to run rigorous, lower-cost studies inside state-regulated care models.
A note from Nathan
Why state-regulated research matters
In Nathan's words — the problem with how this research gets funded, the opening that state programs create, and the role philanthropy can play.
Profit incentives are pointed the wrong way
The FDA approval process expects profit-driven sponsors to finance the research. But the most-studied psychedelics are naturally occurring or off-patent — so there's little commercial reason to study them. Even MAPS's record-setting philanthropic push for MDMA wasn't enough; it had to spin up a for-profit (Lykos) to attract investment. Natural, preventive, and holistic treatments end up under-funded, under-researched, and uncovered by insurance.
State programs make rigor faster and cheaper
Funding research inside state-regulated models can be less expensive and faster than the conventional FDA pathway — while preserving participant safety. Our Low-Income Group Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy for Depression study is proof: by using Oregon's existing regulated infrastructure, investigators ran a preregistered, DEA-consulted study with far lower overhead than an FDA-overseen trial, fully compliant with state law.
Value for the philanthropic dollar
Careful trial design is essential — some activities legal under state law still sit in tension with unenforced federal statutes, and participants are consented accordingly. But there's no reason rigorous trials can't be done with the right referrals and a clear understanding of the law. This isn't about abandoning FDA-track research. It's about an opening the research and philanthropic community shouldn't neglect.
"The opportunity to produce impactful real-world research inside state programs is not one we should neglect."
Spotlight study · Complete
Low-Income Group Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy for Depression
The first clinical study run inside Oregon's regulated program — and the first anywhere built around a low-income population. A $30,000 catalytic grant to the National University of Natural Medicine produced peer-reviewed, real-world evidence at a fraction of FDA-track cost.
Two group psilocybin sessions at a licensed center in NW Portland, with brief virtual preparation and group integration. Mushrooms were donated by an Oregon-licensed cultivator; SSRIs were permitted throughout. Open-label feasibility pilot — small, but a real signal in a real population.
Depression score across the study
Tap a timepoint ↓Average HAM-D depression score at intake — squarely in the severe range. Participants were adults facing financial barriers to care.
Quality of life climbed
Self-rated quality of life (0–10), baseline → three months.
All eight PROMIS-29 domains improved significantly at treatment completion (p<.05):
By the numbers
An open-label feasibility pilot — small sample, strong signal, zero harm.
The same evidence — two very different price tags and timelines.
Decision-useful outcomes at very low cost: FDA-style trials producing comparable clinical endpoints and safety readouts typically require ≈$7–20M per Phase 2 and ≈$12–53M per Phase 3 — MDMA’s Phase 3 program alone raised ≈$30M — placing this study’s evidence production on the order of hundreds to ~1,000× less expensive, on a ≥3× shorter clock.
These efficiencies are structural, not shortcuts. State programs function as living laboratories with safety infrastructure that applies to every dose delivered: dosing confined to licensed service centers (no take-home), continuous in-person monitoring by licensed facilitators, documented safety and transportation plans with post-dose driving prohibited, 72-hour follow-up with offered integration, batch potency testing and statewide product tracking, and center-level emergency planning with adverse-event reporting (OAR 333-333; 4 CCR 755-1). FDA trials enforce GCP per-trial; the state model codifies these protections system-wide.
"Early evidence that an OPS-compliant, lower-cost group model can be safe, acceptable, and impactful for people facing financial barriers to care."
References — cost, speed & safety comparison
Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, Division of Professions and Occupations. (2024). 4 CCR 755-1: Natural Medicine licensure rules and regulations. https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/
Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, Division of Professions and Occupations. (2024). Natural Medicine: Standardized session forms (Safety Plan, Transportation Plan, Adverse Reaction Report). https://dpo.colorado.gov/NaturalMedicine
Food and Drug Administration. (2023, June). Psychedelic drugs: Considerations for clinical investigations (Draft Guidance). https://www.fda.gov/
Food and Drug Administration. (2024, January 31). Advancing psychedelic clinical study design (Workshop). https://www.fda.gov/
KLCC. (2025, August 9). Oregon study shows psilocybin therapy helped low-income people fight depression. https://www.klcc.org/
KGW Staff. (2025, August 9). Oregon study looks at psilocybin therapy impacts for lower-income people. https://www.kgw.com/
MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies). (2019). MAPS announces $30 million philanthropic campaign for Phase 3 MDMA-assisted therapy. https://maps.org/
National University of Natural Medicine. (2024, November 26). NUNM receives Sheri Eckert Foundation grant to study psilocybin-assisted therapy for depression. https://nunm.edu/
Oregon Health Authority. (2024, November 22). Final amended text: Oregon Psilocybin Services (Division 333) rules. https://www.oregon.gov/oha/
Oregon Secretary of State. (2025). OAR 333-333-4460: Service center emergency plan. https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/
Oregon Secretary of State. (2025). OAR 333-333-5000: Client preparation; safety & support plan. https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/
Oregon Secretary of State. (2025). OAR 333-333-5150: Transportation plan requirements. https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/
Oregon Secretary of State. (2025). OAR 333-333-5200: Administration session requirements (continuous in-person monitoring). https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/
Oregon Secretary of State. (2025). OAR 333-333-5240: Administration session—observe consumption; no off-site use; destroy remainder. https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/
Oregon Secretary of State. (2025). OAR 333-333-5260: Post-session follow-up and integration. https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/
Oregon Secretary of State. (2025). OAR 333-333-7040: Potency testing standards. https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/
PR Newswire. (2024, November 26). Oregon naturopathic university receives $30K grant for psilocybin therapy study. https://www.prnewswire.com/
Sertkaya, A., Wong, H.-H., Jessup, A., & Beleche, T. (2016). Key cost drivers of pharmaceutical clinical trials in the United States. Clinical Trials, 13(2), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774515625964
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (2014). Examination of clinical trial costs and barriers to drug development. https://aspe.hhs.gov/
Flagship initiative · In development
ORCHID asks the one question that could unlock access for millions: does psychedelic care save the system money?
A collaboration anchored at UC Berkeley and UCSF, ORCHID links real psilocybin care to real medical-claims data — the kind of economic evidence payers and policymakers need before they'll cover it. SEF is a founding partner.
The ORCHID project
Psychedelic care may be one of the rare treatments that pays for itself.
ORCHID — a real-world evidence collaborative anchored at UC Berkeley and UCSF — is built to test whether psilocybin-assisted care reduces downstream medical spending. If it does, the argument for public funding and insurance coverage changes overnight.
Why a health economist is leading it
This is an evidence problem, framed by people who price healthcare for a living.
ORCHID is led by health economist Elliot Marseille and built with global-health and economics specialists. Their starting premise: the clinical signal for psychedelic therapy is strong — what's missing is the economic evidence that decision-makers use to fund and cover care.
The problem
Psychedelic care works. But millions can't access it.
The science is landing. But out-of-pocket costs of $2,000–$5,000 per session put it out of reach for most of the people who need it.
The bottleneck
One question is blocking access.
FDA trials show
- Efficacy & safety
- Regulatory approval
- Clinical legitimacy
State programs show
- Real-world delivery
- Who actually shows up
- What care really costs
What insurers need
- Total cost of care
- Downstream savings
- Budget impact
Coverage decisions don't hinge on whether it works. They hinge on what it costs the system. That's not a science problem — it's an evidence problem.
Introducing ORCHID
The first study built to answer the cost question.
First
- First real-world economic study of psychedelic care at scale
Real-world
- Uses actual medical claims, not just trial data
Timely
- Built for the moment states and payers are deciding
- Even the new ibogaine laws point here — Texas SB 2308 requires payer-approval plans (Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE) before trials begin
ORCHID connects who received psilocybin care to what happened to their healthcare spending afterward — the missing link between clinical promise and public coverage.
The design
Two studies, one platform.
- ~1,500-person retrospective cohort
- Links psilocybin care to medical-claims history
- Establishes the early cost signal
- Enrolls patients and tracks outcomes & spending
- Tests durability and budget impact
- Built for payer-grade evidence
A platform designed to start with psilocybin, then extend to ibogaine, ketamine, and future compounds.
Three pathways to access
If the evidence lands, three doors open.
State-funded programs
- New Mexico has committed $630,000 toward access
- Public dollars, public benefit
Employer & self-insured plans
- Employers absorbing mental-health costs
- A faster route than national coverage
Commercial insurance
- The largest prize — and the highest evidence bar
- Exactly what ORCHID is built to clear
Each pathway turns on the same thing: proof of total cost of care.
The stakes
Two futures hang on this evidence.
If ORCHID succeeds
- ↗Psychedelic care moves from boutique to system-supported
- ↗Public funding and coverage become defensible
- ↗Access becomes a right, not a privilege
If the evidence never comes
- →Care stays expensive and out-of-pocket
- →Coverage stalls for lack of cost data
- →Access stays limited to those who can pay
The team
Built by people who set the standards.
Advisory network
The investment
$1.79M to build the evidence base for an entire field.
Because the compounds are off-patent, no pharmaceutical sponsor will fund this. Philanthropy is the only path — and the leverage is enormous: a few million dollars of evidence could unlock billions in coverage and public funding.
The choice
Access for millions — or access for a few.
ORCHID is how the field proves its public value. Three ways to move it forward:
Fund
- Catalytic philanthropy to launch the studies
Connect
- Introductions to data partners & payers
Collaborate
- Researchers, programs & states at the table
Sheri Eckert Foundation · nate@sherieckert.org
The questions ORCHID answers
Five questions that decide whether psychedelic care reaches the people who need it.
Most people pay $2,000–$5,000 out of pocket per session. The care works and legal pathways exist — yet insurance won't cover what it can't evaluate. That single gap keeps access limited to those who can afford to self-pay.
That's the core question. By linking participants' real medical claims — ER visits, hospitalizations, prescriptions — before and after care, ORCHID can show whether psychedelic services shift spending away from acute and crisis care toward prevention.
Payers cover treatments when real-world data shows reduced costs and improved outcomes. They need net cost impact per member and validated outcomes in real populations — not just efficacy under controlled trial conditions.
FDA trials measure efficacy under controlled conditions and are drug-company funded. State programs run at scale right now — but have no claims linkage and no commercial sponsor. It isn't a science problem; it's an evidence problem.
Preliminary cost findings in roughly 24 months, with full longitudinal evidence around 42 months — years before equivalent claims data could emerge through the FDA-regulated pipeline.
The portfolio
A growing portfolio of real-world studies inside regulated programs.
Filter by stage or theme. Each project is designed to answer a public-benefit question commercial research won't — and to build evidence the whole field can use.
What we found
Two group psilocybin sessions produced a large, statistically significant drop in depression (HAM-D effect size d=1.89), with gains largely sustained at three months and zero serious adverse events.
Partners
The idea
A community-based pilot pairing licensed psilocybin services with measurement, delivered at a licensed Oregon center. It tested feasibility and acceptability for people seeking to change their relationship with alcohol — outside a hospital trial setting.
Primary partner
Run in partnership with the Healing Advocacy Fund, a primary research partner that supported participant recruitment, enrollment, and funding.
Participant voice
"It was a life-changing healing experience, and one that would have been quite different had I taken the do-it-yourself home route." — Henry W., participant.
Partners
Why it matters
ORCHID is the first study designed to show whether psychedelic care changes downstream healthcare spending — the evidence insurers and states need before they'll fund it. Two studies (retrospective + prospective), anchored at UC Berkeley and UCSF.
The idea
Fragmented measurement makes real-world programs hard to evaluate. OPEN builds shared instruments and data practices across providers — turning scattered service delivery into comparable, poolable evidence.
The idea
Through the Inward Dive Fund, SEF helps pioneer one of the nation's first programs offering subsidized psilocybin-assisted healing to justice-impacted individuals — pairing access with trauma-informed integration and measurement.
The idea
Group administration can sharply cut the clinician time per participant while supporting outcomes through a shared therapeutic container. Building on published cost-effectiveness work, this stream models how group delivery could widen access inside state programs.
Group work expands access and supports outcomes; head-to-head efficacy vs. individual care is still being studied.
Measurement backbone · OHSU
If you can't measure it the same way twice, you can't build evidence.
Real-world programs generate enormous amounts of experience — but scattered, inconsistent data can't move policy. OPEN works to give the field a shared measurement framework, so studies across providers and states can be compared, pooled, and trusted.
Common outcome measures
Validated instruments used consistently across sites — so a result in one program means the same thing in another.
Shared data practices
Consistent consent, capture, and de-identification standards that protect participants and enable pooled analysis.
Provider collaboration
Facilitators and centers contributing to a common evidence base instead of isolated record-keeping.
Safety signal tracking
Standardized adverse-event capture so the field can monitor and improve safety in real time.
Real-world outcomes
Effectiveness measured in the people who actually show up — not just trial-eligible volunteers.
Claims & cost linkage
The connective tissue that lets outcomes be tied to healthcare use — the foundation ORCHID builds on.
$3.3M NIH-supported measurement work
Public research dollars backing rigorous, standardized outcome measurement for real-world psychedelic care — a signal that this evidence is being taken seriously at the national level.
OHSU →An e-Delphi outcomes consensus
A structured expert-consensus process to agree on which outcomes matter most in regulated psilocybin care — the groundwork for measuring the same things, everywhere.
From evidence to access
Research is how a state-regulated model earns the trust to spread.
Insurance and public funding don't arrive on hope. They arrive when the model is shown to work — which builds public trust, which drives other states to adopt it, which is what ultimately unlocks coverage. Evidence is the first link in that chain.
Real-world evidence
Rigorous studies inside legal programs show safety, outcomes & cost.
Public trust
Credible results build confidence among the public and policymakers.
State adoption
More states adopt the model as the evidence and trust grow.
Access & coverage
Public funding and insurance follow — making care affordable at scale.
The national landscape
Where psychedelic policy is moving — and where research can follow.
U.S. psychedelic policy is no longer a single-track "decriminalization story." It now runs in four distinct lanes: local decriminalization, state research & task-force laws, state-regulated access programs, and the federal FDA drug-development pathway. By May 2026 the cycle had produced 115 psychedelics-related bills — 108 state and 7 federal — with 17 signed into law, and ibogaine emerged as the defining state-level theme: 25 bills across 14 states.
Every state and D.C. is now profiled. The map ranks each place by its highest-order verified policy state — a functioning regulator outranks a council resolution — not by "legal vs. illegal." Hover for status; tap for the detail, key bills, sources, and how confident we are in each entry. URLs last verified 2026-06-11.
Major U.S. psychedelic policy milestones — the pivot from municipal deprioritization to state programs to the new ibogaine innovation strategy
Go deeper
From the map to the model — swipe through seven views.
Start here
Four lanes, one goal — reaching people who are suffering.
The FDA route is essential but narrow and slow — no classic psychedelic therapy has yet secured FDA approval, and the 2024 rejection of MDMA-assisted therapy proved that momentum is not approval. Meanwhile states aren't waiting: Oregon and Colorado run regulated access programs, New Jersey enacted a hospital pilot, and Texas, Mississippi, and Kentucky invented a state-funded ibogaine clinical-development model. The views below unpack each layer. Swipe, or jump straight in:
Pathway comparator
Two pathways to access, scored.
Qualitative signals on a 0–100 scale, drawn from the reporting and modeling behind this page. Both pathways matter — the point is that they do different jobs.
Speed and cost signals reflect Reuters/AP reporting on the 2026 federal push (expedited reviews, not approvals), Oregon out-of-pocket pricing, and published cost estimates. Leading federal compounds are candidates, not approved medicines.
Scenario explorer
Under an Oregon-like model, how many adults could be reached?
These are clearly-labeled SEF policy scenarios for planning — not forecasts of real-world uptake. Population figures are illustrative placeholders pending a Census + CMS pull.
The bill ledger
Every principal measure verified this sweep.
The map-relevant catalog of principal state measures — not a line-by-line scrape of every companion bill or refiling. Two lanes dominate: the ibogaine / FDA clinical-development lane (the defining theme of this cycle) and the psilocybin & broader-access lane.
Highest-momentum measures right now: Washington's access bills, Minnesota HF 2906, Illinois HB 2992, Vermont's working-group continuation, New Jersey's enacted pilot — and the ibogaine clinical-development statutes in Texas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Missouri.
Cities & the ballot box
Where cities moved first.
Municipal reform is overwhelmingly a story of decriminalization and lowest-priority resolutions — politically and symbolically important, real effects on police culture and prosecutor norms, but not licensing regimes, and they don't preempt state or federal law. Denver, D.C., Ann Arbor, Detroit, Seattle, Arcata, and the Massachusetts cities set the key mechanism precedents.
At the ballot box.
The most consequential direct-democracy measures to date — and why Massachusetts swung back to legislative and municipal routes after its 2024 statewide loss. Alaska is the clearest currently-filed future statewide effort.
Federal & the pipeline
Federal policy is a drug-development story, not a legalization story.
FDA issued psychedelic clinical-trial guidance in 2023, rejected the first MDMA-assisted-therapy application in 2024 — and in April 2026 the White House and FDA publicly moved to accelerate serious-mental-illness therapies, specifically naming psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression.
The clinical pipeline, keyed to ClinicalTrials.gov.
Psilocybin and LSD now have the clearest major-company pivotal U.S. paths; 5-MeO-DMT is no longer fringe; states are building ibogaine's development infrastructure themselves; and MDMA remains the cautionary tale for any "assume approval is imminent" model.
The research spine
How policy momentum becomes evidence — and access.
Each project answers a public-benefit question the map raises, building the kind of evidence states and payers need.
Project scope is summarized from public materials — confirm against SEF internal records before publishing as final.
Who to watch
Three model families, the next-move states, and the ecosystem driving them.
These pathways are politically, legally, and operationally different — the map deliberately does not imply they're rungs of one ladder.
By the numbers
The same questions, answered for a tiny fraction of the cost.
Why philanthropy inside state programs is such efficient leverage — and what the evidence already shows.
The cost of evidence
Approximate cost to produce comparable clinical endpoints and safety readouts, by pathway. All bars share one linear scale — the smallest are widened slightly to stay visible. The gap is the point.
Phase benchmarks: HHS/ASPE (2014) and Sertkaya et al. (2016) — ≈$7–20M per Phase 2 and ≈$12–53M per Phase 3 across therapeutic areas; MDMA Phase 3 fundraising ≈$30M (MAPS, 2019). LIGPAT delivered decision-useful endpoints for ≈$30K — on the order of hundreds to ~1,000× less expensive, and ≥3× faster than a typical Phase 2.
Depression fell — and held
Average HAM-D depression score in the LIGPAT study. Lower is better; under 8 is considered remission-range.
Who each pathway can reach
An FDA approval would help a specific, diagnosis-restricted group. A state-regulated model is open to far more people — any qualifying adult, regardless of diagnosis.
U.S. adults estimated eligible for psilocybin therapy for depression, after diagnosis and comorbidity screens — of ~14.8M with a major depressive episode each year.
Open to qualifying adults regardless of diagnosis — a far larger population. Oregon alone has already served over 20,000, and ~30 states have weighed similar models.
Eligibility estimate derived from published cost-effectiveness modeling (Marseille et al., 2023). Both pathways matter — the point is that they reach different, complementary populations.
Think it through
Two pathways to the same goal — reaching people who are suffering.
What do you think is the biggest barrier to access today?
Thanks for weighing in. Cost and coverage are exactly what ORCHID is built to address — illustrative tallies shown for reflection.
Compare the two pathways
Essential for clinical legitimacy and nationwide prescribing — but slow, expensive, and narrow by design. It reaches a specific diagnosis-restricted population, and insurance follows only after approval — and none has come yet: FDA’s 2024 rejection of MDMA-assisted therapy proved momentum isn’t approval, even as Washington moved in April 2026 to accelerate serious-mental-illness therapies, naming psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression.
Already delivering care to far more people, regardless of diagnosis. What it lacks is the cost-and-outcome evidence payers need — which real-world studies inside the model can now generate.
The fastest route to broad access pairs both: FDA approval for legitimacy and prescribing, the state model for real-world reach, and rigorous evidence linking the two. That combination can reach far more people, far sooner, than either alone.
Library
The evidence, in the open.
Peer-reviewed papers, study results, press coverage, and policy resources behind the work. Filter by type.
In the news
The work, as the world is covering it.
Reporting and research on the foundation, Nathan Howard, and the studies reshaping access. Rotates automatically — tap any card to read the source.
An Oregon study finds psilocybin therapy eased depression for low-income participants.
Local coverage of the first depression study run inside the state's regulated psilocybin program — and what it could mean for people priced out of care.
Read on KGWA small Oregon study suggests group psilocybin care can reach people who usually can't afford it.
Public-radio reporting on the SEF-funded, low-income depression study and its implications for equitable access.
Listen / readResearchers report significant reductions in depression after psilocybin-assisted therapy.
The university's summary of the peer-reviewed results from the study SEF helped fund.
Read the resultsInside the first depression study conducted within Oregon's regulated program.
Statewide coverage of how researchers ran a rigorous study using the legal psilocybin model.
Read on OPBAs psychedelic therapy grows, the open question is who can actually afford it.
Reporting on the affordability gap that real-world research is now trying to close.
Read moreThe economics of psychedelic care may decide whether it ever reaches scale.
A look at why cost evidence — not just clinical proof — is the next frontier for access.
Read moreA new paper argues psychedelic care must be judged on cost and access, not just efficacy.
Co-authored by SEF's Nathan Howard, on the case for economic evaluation in the field.
Read the paperRoughly 30 states have weighed psychedelic legislation in recent sessions.
A continuously updated tracker of the state-by-state policy momentum behind the model.
See the trackerFederal support backs standardized measurement for real-world psychedelic care.
How shared outcomes infrastructure is being built to make this evidence trustworthy.
Learn moreSEF announces new real-world research inside state-regulated programs.
Foundation releases on the studies expanding the evidence base for accessible care.
Read announcementsGet involved
Catalytic dollars here go further than almost anywhere in the field.
A $30,000 grant produced a peer-reviewed depression study. A few million could unlock the cost evidence that opens coverage for millions. There are three ways to move this work forward.
Fund a study
Catalytic, philanthropic capital to launch and complete real-world studies inside regulated programs — where every dollar stretches.
Support researchPartner & connect
Introductions to data partners, payers, employers, and states — the relationships that turn evidence into access.
Get in touchCollaborate on research
Researchers, providers, and programs who want to build rigorous, shared-measurement studies in the model.
Propose a projectThe case, in brief
Why this is the highest-leverage moment to invest
- The science is landing. Psilocybin and MDMA show strong results for depression and PTSD in rigorous trials.
- The policy momentum is historic. 115 psychedelics-related bills in 2026 alone — 17 signed into law — and states from Texas to Kentucky now fund FDA-track psychedelic development themselves.
- Commercial funding won't come. Off-patent compounds give pharma little reason to study them.
- Legal pathways already exist. Oregon and Colorado operate regulated programs; New Mexico is standing one up; New Jersey just enacted a $6M hospital pilot.
- Cost is the real barrier. At $2,000–$5,000 per session out of pocket, care is out of reach for most.
- Coverage needs evidence. Payers and states fund what real-world cost-and-outcome data supports.
- State models can generate it. Faster and far cheaper than the FDA pathway, with safety preserved.
- The proof of concept exists. A $30K grant delivered a peer-reviewed depression study (d=1.89).
- The leverage is enormous. A few million in evidence could unlock billions in coverage and public funding.
Access for millions, not just a few.
Carrying forward the work Sheri Eckert began — building the evidence, measurement, and access that make psychedelic care a public good.