New Mexico Medical Psilocybin Program · Advisory Board
Updated August 26, 2026.
A specialization would sit on top of a core permit rather than replace it. Nothing here is in the published text, the revised proposed rule of August 25, 2026. 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.
Dominic Zurlo, director of the Department of Health Center for Medical Cannabis and Psilocybin, recorded in the July 16 notes as Dom: 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, the term used in the July 16 discussion for a person who stays with a patient across the whole arc of a session to provide continuity rather than to facilitate it, 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, from meeting notes; no record of that meeting is held in this repository; positions attributed to the members who stated them. How specialization sits on core eligibility is on Which licenses 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, from meeting notes; no record of that meeting is held in this repository.
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 August 25
Facilitator: 70 didactic + 10 simulated patient + 100 practicum. Practitioner: 70 didactic + 10 simulated patient + 120 practicum. These are the core figures on the Training hours record, as published on August 25. The working model of the hours holds the same figures with the didactic and simulated patient hours added together as a module total of 80, which is the basis on which it compares the recommendation, at its August 21 position, against the published text.
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, from meeting notes; no record of that meeting is held in this repository; hour ranges attributed to the committee and to Gregory Evans. Core figures: the revised proposed rule, August 25, pp.11–14.
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, whose surname is not recorded in the meeting notes, at the End-of-Life Care committee meeting, July 16, 2026. Neither the deck nor a record of that meeting is held in this repository. 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, from meeting notes; no record of that meeting is held in this repository; 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 text. The curriculum at 7.35.3.18 (C), p. 12 lists twenty-six required topics in the August 25 text, and none of them is end-of-life care by name; suicidality, substance use disorder, and PTSD are not named either. Denali Wilson asked on July 17 that all four 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. The nearest counterpart in the August 25 list is the new topic "Education on the qualifying conditions and appropriate treatment practices", end-of-life care, substance use disorders, and PTSD being three of the four qualifying conditions; no topic carries an hour minimum. The recommendation's eight-hour end-of-life minimum was not adopted.