Psychedelic Research Incubator

Psychedelic Research Incubator is sponsored by Sheri Eckert Foundation. The Psychedelic Research Incubator supports real-world research into psychedelic healthcare. It partners with institutions to advance evidence-based policy and expand access to psychedelic treatments.

The incubator aims to generate cost-and-outcome data to support public funding and insurance coverage for psychedelic care, emphasizing real-world studies in state-regulated care models.

Research Incubator — Sheri Eckert Foundation Psychedelic Research Incubator — Sheri Eckert Foundation Sheri Eckert Foundation · Psychedelic Research Incubator 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. Named for Sheri Eckert , who helped create the United States' first psychedelic healthcare program — and the first publicly available, state-regulated model of its kind in the world. We carry her work forward.

Move your cursor — the mycelium responds Move through the ecosystem 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.

How most medicine reaches approval Profit-driven by design Sponsors fund trials expecting patent-protected returns. ~$1. 1B per CNS approval One estimate for a nervous-system drug (2018 dollars).

Off-patent compounds skipped Little incentive to study naturally occurring medicine. Cost & time to evidence — very high The public-benefit pathway What SEF helps make possible Philanthropy fills the gap Funding research that serves people, not patents. Inside legal, regulated programs Rigorous studies using Oregon & Colorado infrastructure.

Faster, lower-cost, real-world Evidence on access, cost, safety & equity — sooner. Cost & time to evidence — dramatically lower This is a complement to FDA-track research — not a replacement for it. FDA pathway vs. the state model — who actually gets care?

Thirteen 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. 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 study Low-Income Group Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy for Depression See the study First study focused on a low-income population The study The same depression study — built for people facing financial barriers (n=19, HAM-D d=1.

89) See the study First study on Alcohol Use Disorder in the model The study Community Impact Pilot — AUD, delivered at InnerTrek with People Science See the study First to link real healthcare costs to psychedelic care The study ORCHID — UC Berkeley & UCSF, linking psilocybin care to real medical claims See 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-funded Oregon alcohol-use study 0 people have moved through Oregon's regulated psilocybin services 0 mean participant satisfaction in our completed depression study 0 field-wide value of building real-world evidence the field can't otherwise afford 0 regulated venues — Oregon, Colorado & New Mexico — for our next studies SSRN · 2026 · Working paper The Imperative for Economic Evaluation in Psychedelic-Assisted Therapies 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.

Co-author · Executive Director, Sheri Eckert Foundation 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."

— Nathan Howard, Executive Director, Sheri Eckert Foundation 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.

NUNM Synaptic Institute OHSU Satori Farms (donated) Depression score across the study After 2 sessions Completion Months later 3-month follow-up Average HAM-D depression score at intake — squarely in the severe range. Participants were adults facing financial barriers to care. Self-rated quality of life (0–10), baseline → three months.

Self-rated quality of life 5. 9 → 7. 4 All eight PROMIS-29 domains improved significantly at treatment completion (p<.

05): Anxiety Depression Fatigue Sleep Social role Pain interference Pain intensity Physical function An open-label feasibility pilot — small sample, strong signal, zero harm. completers · 95% retention HAM-D effect size at completion (p<. 001) mean participant satisfaction serious adverse events reported The philanthropic leverage The same evidence — two very different price tags and timelines.

From grant to published results Used existing regulated infrastructure Illustrative comparison. A full FDA-track approval for a single nervous-system drug has been estimated near $1. 1B ; this study delivered real-world evidence inside a legal program for the cost of a used car.

"Early evidence that an OPS-compliant, lower-cost group model can be safe, acceptable, and impactful for people facing financial barriers to care." — A finding of the study, published in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2026) Journal of Psychedelic Studies ↗ ClinicalTrials.

gov · NCT06372197 ↗ 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.

retrospective cohort (ORCHID I) Walk the deck to unlock the case for access 11 slides · each milestone unlocks the next Unlock state funding — every $1 can save more than $1 Unlock insurance reimbursement 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. UC Berkeley UCSF Sheri Eckert Foundation 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. Elliot Marseille · Project lead, health economics Psychedelic care works.

But millions can't access it. people live with depression worldwide WHO don't reach remission on standard treatment Clinical literature of treatment-resistant patients responded to psilocybin in trials Johns Hopkins PTSD remission with MDMA-assisted therapy in Phase 3 MAPS / UCSF 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.

One question is blocking access. 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. The first study built to answer the cost question. First real-world economic study of psychedelic care at scale Uses actual medical claims, not just trial data Built for the moment states and payers are deciding ORCHID connects who received psilocybin care to what happened to their healthcare spending afterward — the missing link between clinical promise and public coverage.

Two studies, one platform.

Retrospective — look back at real claims ~1,500-person retrospective cohort Links psilocybin care to medical-claims history Establishes the early cost signal Prospective — follow new patients forward 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.

If the evidence lands, three doors open. 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 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. Two futures hang on this evidence.

↗ 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 Built by people who set the standards.

Elliot Marseille Health economics · project lead Stefano Bertozzi Public health · UC Berkeley Robin Carhart-Harris Neuroscience · UCSF James G. Kahn Health economics · UCSF Will Lucas Implementation partner Nathan Howard Sheri Eckert Foundation Norris Loehr Bronner Todd Rollins Jesse $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. Year 1 Launch ORCHID I — build the retrospective cohort and data linkages Year 2 First cost signal; design and open ORCHID II prospective enrollment Yr 3–3.

5 Prospective outcomes & budget-impact analysis — payer-grade evidence Access for millions — or access for a few. ORCHID is how the field proves its public value. Three ways to move it forward: Catalytic philanthropy to launch the studies Introductions to data partners & payers 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. Q1 What does psychedelic care actually cost today? + 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. Q2 Could it reduce downstream healthcare use?

+ 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. Q3 What would insurers actually need to see?

+ 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. Q4 Why can't existing research answer this?

+ 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.

Q5 How soon could the evidence arrive? + 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. 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. Complete Depression · Low-income Low-Income Group Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy for Depression The first clinical study inside Oregon's program — and the first built for a low-income population.

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.

HAM-D baseline → completion NUNM Synaptic Institute OHSU Full interactive write-up ↓ Journal of Psychedelic Studies ↗ Complete Alcohol use · Community Community Impact Pilot — Alcohol Use Disorder The first study of psilocybin for alcohol use disorder delivered inside the regulated model. 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. "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. In development Cost & outcomes · Flagship ORCHID — real-world cost & outcomes Linking psilocybin care to actual medical claims to answer the question payers ask first. 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. Explore the ORCHID deck ↑ In progress Measurement backbone OPEN — shared measurement at OHSU A common outcomes framework so every study in the model speaks the same language. 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. See the OPEN · OHSU work ↓ In progress Justice-impacted · Access Justice-impacted access & healing Subsidized, legal psychedelic care and integration for people touched by the justice system.

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. In development Group care · Cost-access Group delivery — cost & access modeling Quantifying how group-based care expands access and lowers clinician cost.

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. modeled clinician-cost cut (psilocybin-MDD) 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.

Validated instruments used consistently across sites — so a result in one program means the same thing in another. Consistent consent, capture, and de-identification standards that protect participants and enable pooled analysis. Facilitators and centers contributing to a common evidence base instead of isolated record-keeping.

Standardized adverse-event capture so the field can monitor and improve safety in real time. Effectiveness measured in the people who actually show up — not just trial-eligible volunteers. The connective tissue that lets outcomes be tied to healthcare use — the foundation ORCHID builds on.

Federal investment · 2026 $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.

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. Where psychedelic policy is moving — and where research can follow. Real-world evidence is what lets a state-regulated model earn the trust to spread — and trust is what eventually unlocks public funding and coverage.

This is a snapshot of that journey, grouped by where each place sits , not by "legal vs. illegal." Hover a state for its status; tap for the detail, sources, and how confident we are in each entry. An empty state simply means no publish-ready statewide item surfaced in this sweep — not that nothing is happening there.

Eleven jurisdictions are profiled with sources in this sweep; the rest are shown muted pending a later verification pass. Tap any state for detail. International entries draw chiefly on a Reuters explainer plus secondary references; items marked provisional still need official statutory confirmation before publishing as settled.

From the map to the model — swipe through three views. Two pathways, one goal — reaching people who are suffering. The FDA route is essential but narrow and slow.

A state-regulated model already serves far more people, but needs the cost-and-outcome evidence payers want. The three views below show how they compare, who a state model could reach, and how SEF's research connects to each. Swipe, or jump straight in: State model vs. the FDA track, scored across six dimensions.

How many adults a state model could reach, under your assumptions. The studies that turn policy momentum into evidence — and access. 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. Both State model FDA track Oregon-like state model FDA / pharma track 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. 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. Coverage layers (shown separately) Layers are shown separately, never summed — the same person can appear in more than one. Counts are illustrative of scale under the chosen assumptions, not predictions.

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.

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. Approximate cost to generate evidence, by pathway.

Note the scale — these bars are not to scale with one another; the gap is the point. FDA approval (single CNS drug) ~$1. 1B ORCHID (real-world cost & outcomes) $1.

79M LIGPAT depression study $30K FDA figure: estimated cost of bringing one nervous-system drug to approval (2018 dollars). State-model studies deliver real-world evidence for a vanishingly small share of that. Depression fell — and held Average HAM-D depression score in the LIGPAT study.

Lower is better; under 8 is considered remission-range. Severe Remission-range Sustained 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. Two pathways to the same goal — reaching people who are suffering. What do you think is the biggest barrier to access today?

Cost & lack of insurance 61% Too few trained providers 8% Thanks for weighing in. Cost and coverage are exactly what ORCHID is built to address — illustrative tallies shown for reflection. 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. 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. The evidence, in the open.

Peer-reviewed papers, study results, press coverage, and policy resources behind the work. Filter by type.

Paper The Imperative for Economic Evaluation in Psychedelic-Assisted Therapies SSRN · 2026 · co-authored by Nathan Howard Paper Low-Income Group Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy for Depression Journal of Psychedelic Studies · 2026 Result Psilocybin therapy significantly reduced depression NUNM · study results · Aug 2025 Official Study registration · NCT06372197 ClinicalTrials.

gov Paper Group psychedelic therapy: cost-savings & improved access Frontiers in Psychiatry · Marseille, Stauffer et al.

· 2023 Media Oregon study: psilocybin helped low-income people fight depression KLCC / NPR Media Psilocybin therapy for depression in low-income adults KGW Media Oregon psilocybin depression study coverage OPB Media Psychedelics coverage & analysis The Guardian Media The economics of psychedelic access Fast Company Policy U.S. psychedelic legislation tracker Psychedelic Alpha Official Oregon Psilocybin Services Oregon Health Authority Official OHSU — measurement & outcomes research Oregon Health & Science University Policy SEF Research Incubator Sheri Eckert Foundation Result SEF grant launches the depression study NUNM · grant announcement · 2024 Media SEF research announcements PR Newswire The story behind the research — and the people it's for Watch · Sheri Eckert Foundation Trouble loading?

Watch on YouTube ↗ 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.

KGW 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. KLCC · NPR A 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. NUNM Researchers report significant reductions in depression after psilocybin-assisted therapy. The university's summary of the peer-reviewed results from the study SEF helped fund.

OPB Inside the first depression study conducted within Oregon's regulated program. Statewide coverage of how researchers ran a rigorous study using the legal psilocybin model. The Guardian As 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. Fast Company The 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.

SSRN · Working paper A 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. Psychedelic Alpha Roughly 30 states have weighed psychedelic legislation in recent sessions.

A continuously updated tracker of the state-by-state policy momentum behind the model. OHSU Federal support backs standardized measurement for real-world psychedelic care. How shared outcomes infrastructure is being built to make this evidence trustworthy.

PR Newswire SEF announces new real-world research inside state-regulated programs. Foundation releases on the studies expanding the evidence base for accessible care. 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.

Catalytic, philanthropic capital to launch and complete real-world studies inside regulated programs — where every dollar stretches. Introductions to data partners, payers, employers, and states — the relationships that turn evidence into access. Researchers, providers, and programs who want to build rigorous, shared-measurement studies in the model.

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. Commercial funding won't come.

Off-patent compounds give pharma little reason to study them. Legal pathways already exist. Oregon, Colorado, and New Mexico run regulated programs today.

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.