Q3 2025
Produced by Alice Lineham and Josh Hardman
Using Oregon Psilocybin Services’ quarterly datasets, we take a deep dive into emerging trends through various data visualisations and analysis. This marks the third instalment of our Oregon Psilocybin Services Tracker, which will produce analysis of each cut of data as it is released. ∎
To receive future tracker updates to your email, join our free newsletter:
It has been three years since Oregon became the first state in the U.S. to offer legally regulated psilocybin services to the public. The rollout has been a mixed bag—marked by both optimism and uncertainty—with some centers thriving and others closing their doors just months after opening.
In Q1 2025, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) began publishing quarterly data on the program. This first-of-its-kind dataset offers an early look at how the system is functioning in practice, drawing on reports from licensed service centers, facilitators, manufacturers, and clients. While the current data is limited to the first half of 2025, it provides foundational insights into key areas including product sales, safety, licensing, and client demographics.
Psychedelic Alpha will update this page regularly as time-series data becomes available, helping to build a clearer picture of the evolving landscape.
Oregon’s Psilocybin Services (OPS) launched in January 2023, with the first sessions held that summer. Since then, we can estimate that around 16000 clients have received psilocybin services, driving the sale of over 37,000 psilocybin products and generating more than $1.7 million in revenue. Despite consistent growth in volume—with sales in line with our projected figures for the 2025 year-end —the average price per product has declined each year, falling from ~$85 in 2023 to an estimated ~$50 by mid-2026. This downward trend likely reflects increased competition due to a growing number of licensed psilocybin manufacturers.
Figure 1. Aggregate OPS product sales.
In terms of the evolving psilocybin sessions landscape, the first three quarters of 2025 saw 4,577 clients accessing services—with a relatively even split across the two quarters. Of these, 3,721 were individual sessions (i.e., one client per session) and 573 were group sessions, the latter averaging around 3 clients per group. Group sessions tend to be significantly more affordable, with some service centers offering rates between $300–$500. By contrast, the cost of individual sessions remains considerably higher.
There’s a trend toward repeat visits, too, with unique clients receiving an average of 1.5 sessions in Q1, Q2, and Q3, raising an intriguing question: Will demand for group sessions rise as services scale and cost becomes a decisive factor for repeat clients? As of Q3 2025, any increase is very modest, but with affordability and accessibility likely to shape future utilisation patterns, we will be sure to track trends like these if and when they emerge.
As of January 2025, Senate Bill 303 requires psilocybin service centers to gather and compile client demographic information and submit aggregated totals to OPS on a quarterly basis. The introduction of SB 303 aims to offer insight into who currently accesses psilocybin services, and—over time—who is left out.
It may also provide a springboard for more targeted efforts around equity and inclusion, particularly for communities historically impacted by health disparities, systemic injustice, and unequal access to care. The introduction of this bill means the following data is available for us to report on.
We now know that individuals are seeking Oregon’s psilocybin services for a wide range of reasons. With respondents able to select multiple reasons, many highlight goals such as expanding consciousness, shifting perspectives or motivations, enhancing creativity, or pursuing broader health and wellness—reflected by the largest bubble in Figure 2, representing ‘Wellness and Self-Exploration’. Others present with more entrenched mental health conditions or diagnoses, including severe PTSD, depression, and anxiety—captured by the second-largest bubble: ‘Mental and Emotional Health’.
Motivation trends remained largely stable across Q1, Q2 and Q3 2025, with few notable changes across quarters.
Figure 2. Reasons for use (aggregated by Psychedelic Alpha).
Figure 3. Reasons for use.
The financial burden of these services remains significant. Psilocybin sessions often range from $1,000 to over $5,000, with one offering costing $15,000 for a 5-day inclusive package. While these higher-end costs often include accommodation, meals, and multiple doses, they still exclude key expenses such as travel and the cost of an accompanying partner—both of which can substantially inflate the overall outlay. It is probable, then, that many of the individuals seeking services are either those for whom conventional methods have not worked, or those for whom cost is less of a concern.
Indeed, we see that Oregon’s median household income sits at roughly $88,000, yet the estimated average income of those currently accessing OPS is nearly double—around $153,0001 (an increase from $164,000 in Q2). The gap perhaps isn’t surprising given the steep costs associated with individual psilocybin sessions, but it certainly speaks to the continued need for affordability safeguards if OPS is to become more equitable and widely available.
Advocates of Oregon Psilocybin Services (OPS) have argued that services will become more accessible as the program scales. Fortunately, we now have data with which to track that effort.
Given the high costs, it’s also not surprising that the average client age skews high, averaging 46 years across Q1, Q2, and Q3, with around 20% of clients sitting above 60. In some respects, it is possible that older individuals are more inclined to pursue these services as they may be further along in their self-betterment journeys than younger folks. That said, we may see this average shift downward over time—as the field expands and pricing becomes more accessible—particularly given the younger generation’s curiosity and openness towards psychedelics.
With these expenses in mind, it recently became mandatory for facilitators, service centers and manufacturers to submit a social equity plan as part of their annual licensing process. The rule is becoming increasingly stringent, with recent requirements for the description of a) the application of diversity, equity, justice and inclusion principles to the licensee’s practices and policies (e.g. detailing workforce training, sliding scale pricing), and b) objective performance measures that will be used to evaluate the plan (e.g. retrieving workforce feedback, percentage of clients that will benefit from financial assistance). Licensees are expected to review their performance and document evaluation of their social equity plans at their scheduled renewal points. Since Q1 2025, those renewals now take place annually, rather than every five years. If an Annual Social Equity Evaluation Report does not sufficiently meet the rule requirements, license renewal may be denied.
Examples of what this looks like in practice include subsidised or free spots reserved for individuals who might otherwise be priced out of the service altogether. One facilitator shared that he typically sets aside one or two slots in an eight-person group session for clients on subsidised rates or longer-term payment plans (spanning six to nine months, for example). Additional efforts include non-profit initiatives in the state which provide financial assistance to those otherwise unable to obtain access to Oregon’s services.
Note: As with many of the identity data points, some responses were marked with an asterisk, indicating that counts were too low to report without compromising confidentiality. These entries were recorded as zeros, which may lead to an overstatement of the proportion of respondents identifying with the reported groups.
Other rules introduced in January 2025 to center diversity and inclusion include the mandate for culturally responsive services. Clients must now be asked whether they require services that are “responsive to diverse cultural beliefs and practices, preferred languages, literacy and other communication needs of clients.” A service center must document their plans to accommodate these needs—and refer the client on if they are unable to meet them.
This is particularly salient given the marked overrepresentation of clients of Western European heritage. Averaging across 2025, approximately 40% (~1274 respondents) identified as such. In this same time frame, those identifying as ‘Other White’ represented approximately 20% (~659 respondents) and clients of Eastern European heritage counted for around 12% (~388 respondents). Another 11% (~353 respondents) opted not to answer, whilst many remaining identity categories were asterisked due to a low number of responses (to protect confidentiality).
This limited racial and ethnic spread is echoed in language preferences, where the vast majority of respondents selected English as their preferred language, both spoken and written. Still, it’s worth considering that some clients may have selected English for reasons beyond preference or identity.
These trends are mimicked across the licensees and workers within the OPS infrastructure. In Q2 and Q3, for example, 100% of the 78 licensee applicants were either of Western European or ‘Other White’ heritage, although this figure will be inflated slightly due to asterisked data points. Due in part to a bigger sample, Q1 saw slightly more diversity in applicants, albeit slim: of 321 respondents, over 30% identified as Western European, around 24% as Other White, and around 16% as Eastern European—together accounting for over 70% of reported identities. Just 26 individuals (~8%) identified as Mexican or as Other Hispanic or Latino/a/x, despite the fact that Hispanic and Latino/a/x represent approximately 14% of Oregon’s population. Meanwhile, approximately 20% declined to report their racial or ethnic background. Again, all other categories—including Black, Indigenous, Asian, and Latin American respondents—were asterisked, pointing to the need for services that not only comply with regulatory expectations but work to actively challenge systemic exclusion in a field that remains unrepresentative of the communities it aims to serve.
Figure 4: Racial and ethnic identity of OPS clients and licensees2. Note: Use the Quarter toggle at the top left to view different cuts of data.
It’s also worth noting the uneven gender distribution in reported data: totalling across Q1, Q2 and Q3 (each of which were not markedly different), 1,524 clients (50%) identified as women compared to just 1,056 men (35%). While speculative, this may align with wider mental health trends suggesting that women are more likely to seek support or engage with therapeutic services—particularly in contexts where conventional treatments have not been effective.
OPS clients hailed from dispersed geographical regions. Of the 904* respondents who responded in Q1, approximately 47% (~428 respondents) were Oregon-based. By Q2, that dropped to just 29% (~317 out of 1,089* respondents) and by Q3 a low of 26% (~219 out of 822* respondents) marking a more than 20% decline in home-country representation. While not all clients provided location data, these figures seem to suggest a notable shift in regional composition.
Notable concentrations in Q1 appeared in the westernmost counties and urban centers, with Jackson and Multnomah Counties each accounting for over 20% of in-state respondents. This West-leaning trend persisted into Q2 and Q3, with Multnomah remaining a dominant source of Oregon-based clients, accounting for approximately 33% in Q2 and 43% in Q3. Clackamas, Benton, Deschutes, and Washington were the only other counties to exceed 10% representation across any of the quarters.
This is relatively unsurprising, given that most service centers are located in urban areas (in part due to zoning regulations) and that awareness, access and socioeconomic status tends to be higher in more densely populated regions.
Across Oregon’s service centers, it’s estimated that during Q3 nearly 60% of responding clients are travelling in from out of state—an increase of around 10% from Q2, and 20% from Q1. While we don’t have specific region-by-region data available, it is likely that larger cities like Portland hold a strategic advantage for attracting out-of-state clients, given direct flight routes and its growing visibility as a psychedelic destination. According to one facilitator interviewed by KLCC’s Oregon on the Record podcast, his Medford-based center in Jackson County receives up to 90% of its clients from outside Oregon, potentially due to its proximity to Northern California, along with other logistical factors.
This pattern of cross-border client flow is seen nationally. Despite Oregon’s proximity, a recent article highlighted Seattle residents travelling internationally for psilocybin retreats. Findings from a recent cross-sectional survey by Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Safety (RMPDS) further illustrate this trend: roughly 30% of psychedelic users in the U.S. reported travelling specifically to access psychedelic services. Of these, just over 30% reported travelling to Oregon—only slightly behind Colorado and international travel, which were both reported as destinations by around 40% of psychedelic travellers.
*Known responses. Note that we do not know the exact number of total responses due to asterisked data.
Figure 5. Home counties of Oregonian psilocybin services clients. Note: Use the Quarter toggle at the top left to browse different cuts of data.
This geographic spread raises important questions around access—especially for individuals who are homebound or disabled in ways that make travel to service centers difficult. In some parts of the state, individuals may need to travel hundreds of miles to reach their nearest center, especially since many cities and counties have voted to ban psilocybin services within their jurisdictions.
In the first three quarters of 2025, approximately 1% of clients reported having at least one disability that could reasonably be inferred to impact mobility or independence, including sensory functions, serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, dressing or bathing, or doing errands alone. Notably, in this same time frame, around 6% of respondents reported challenges with Mental Functions–like difficulty concentrating, with memory, emotional regulation, or mood–making this the most commonly identified area of difficulty. While often less visible, these challenges can pose equally significant barriers to travel.
In effect, the current in-person service requirement may mean that some individuals are left with little option but to seek underground access or forgo services altogether. In response, a group of Oregon healthcare providers has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the existing framework discriminates against homebound clients who cannot travel.
Figure 6: Reported Disabilities Among Clients Accessing Psilocybin Services3. Note: Use the Quarter toggle in the top left.
With the release of time-series data from Q2 we are now able to start tracking progress in this area. No real changes were evidenced between the first two quarters, save for a slight rise in ‘All Other Responses’ in Q2 (i.e. those who either opted not to answer, did not understand the question, or were unsure of their personal status in relation to the disability items). This noteworthy share of clients selecting non-definitive responses perhaps reflects the sensitivity or complexity of gathering data in this area. Despite considerable opposition to the introduction of Senate Bill 303, it’s a notable positive that clients retain the option to skip individual questions or opt out of having their responses submitted to the central OPS system altogether.
This pattern of non-response extends to other questions concerning identity. In relation to sexual orientation: of the 2,983 client responses received in the first three quarters of 2025, nearly 63% identified as straight or heterosexual. The next most common response was “Don’t want to answer”, accounting for around 14% of responses. Similar trends were seen across gender identity and sex at birth designations, with both questions generating between 10-15% of clients opting not to disclose.
A similar pattern was observed across quarters in licensee and worker responses to sexual orientation, with the majority identifying as straight or heterosexual and over 10% opting not to respond. In Q2 and Q3, all 32 respondents identified as straight or heterosexual. Interestingly though, a recent survey evidenced pending improvement, with over 40% of facilitators who are currently enrolled in an OPS-approved training programme identifying as a sexual or gender minority.
Notably, from Q2 2025 onwards, demographic response volumes from licensees and workers will be significantly smaller than in Q1, as Q1 captured data from both existing employees and new applicants, while subsequent quarters will only include the latter.
Figure 7. Sexual Orientation: Clients and Licensees. Note: Use the Quarter toggle in the top left corner.
These patterns are not unique to OPS and likely reflect broader trends in data reporting around identity, where concerns about privacy or stigma may influence willingness to respond. The rollout of SB 303 has intensified these concerns, with critics raising alarms about heightened surveillance and the potential erosion of trust, echoing debates around similar legislation, such as Colorado’s Proposition 122.
Measure 109’s original framework emphasized voluntary participation and confidentiality, especially for those from communities historically overpoliced and underrepresented in healthcare. Critics argue that mandatory data collection may not only dissuade participation, but also undermine the very equity aims the framework was built to support. Others question whether the benefits of comprehensive data truly outweigh the risks, suggesting that meaningful insights can still be gleaned from those who freely opt to share.
Since January 2025, 200 clients have been denied access by licensed service centers. From Q2, data reporting began including a touch more colour, offering clearer insight into reasons for denial, with most issued primarily on the basis of eligibility requirements or misalignment with a center’s operational model. Notably, Q3 saw a significantly smaller number of client denials (17) as compared to Q2 (81), though the reason for this is currently unclear.
Figure 8. Reasons for OPS Client Denials.
It’s worth noting that, despite the majority of exclusions stemming from ineligibility, medical screening within Oregon’s psilocybin framework still remains relatively limited. The Oregon Health Authority mandates only a small number of absolute exclusions, such as pregnancy, lithium use, or serious cardiac conditions. Beyond these, eligibility is determined through a collaborative preparation process between facilitators and clients.
Unlike many retreat centers and clinical trials, Oregon does not prohibit clients who are taking antidepressants, with some estimating that up to 80% of clients may be using SSRIs. While SSRIs and similar medications have been thought to dampen psilocybin’s effects by altering serotonin receptor responsiveness, OPS facilitators are not barred from working with such clients. As Myles Katz—an experienced facilitator within the OPS system and co-founder of the ill-fated Synthesis project in Oregon—mentions on the Conscious Physician podcast, some adjust dosage within the legal potency limits in an effort to compensate. Under current regulations, this equates to a maximum of 50 mg of psilocybin analyte per session (with the average dose for the first half of 2025 sitting at 24.44 mg), roughly equivalent to 5 to 10 grams of dried Psilocybe cubensis mushrooms, depending on potency.
Since sessions began in summer 2023, a total of 23 emergency service reports have been documented across Oregon’s licensed psilocybin service centers. This spans 24 centers and more than 37,000 psilocybin products sold. (Note: an emergency service report refers to the form centers must submit when emergency services are contacted during or after a client session).
Despite a steady rise in session volume, emergency interventions remain low. In Q1 2025, no product recalls were issued, and across more than 1,500 documented sessions, adverse events (AEs) were rare. While AEs ticked up slightly in Q2 and even more so in Q3, their rate relative to session volume (2,729 sessions documented across both quarters) remained low, and no product recalls were issued. Statewide, the following incidents have been recorded across both quarters:
| Adverse Event Type | Q1 Reports | Q2 Reports | Q3 Reports |
|---|---|---|---|
| Behavioural (adverse - emergency of medical contact) | 0 | 3 | 2 |
| Behavioural (severe - required hospitalisation) | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Medical (adverse - non-hospital medical care) | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Medical (severe - hospitalisation required) | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| (Delayed onset) 72-hour post-session adverse reactions | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| TOTAL | 6 | 11 | 16 |
It’s useful to interpret these figures in context. In clinical trial settings, AEs can include anything from nausea to a mild headache. By contrast, Oregon Health Authority (in the context of OPS) defines AEs much more narrowly as incidents requiring emergency services, medical attention, or hospitalisation. Events meeting these criteria would typically be classified as serious adverse events (SAEs) in trial protocols.
At first glance, the data paints a promising picture: the absence of product recall and post-session reactions, coupled with a >99.02% OPS-defined adverse-event-free session rate, suggests strong adherence to safety protocols and facilitator oversight. That said, there’s relatively little information on milder AEs, precisely the types of side effects that might become more relevant as services scale and frequency of administration increases.
There’s also the question of longer-term S(AEs). Some of the most critical safety findings in the literature emerge several weeks post-dose, yet current data collection appears to end at the 72-hour mark. It’s also worth considering the reporting process itself: post-session adverse events must be initiated by the client, with no requirement for proactive follow-up by the service center or facilitator. This stands in stark contrast to clinical trial protocols, which require structured clinician-led follow-ups at set intervals (i.e. 24 hr, 48hr, 1 week) after dosing. It would be interesting to know if everyone experiencing a difficult comedown or psychological wobble is picking up the phone to file a formal incident report.
Editor’s note: This data from OPS isn’t always entirely clear in what it refers to. In some cases, the numbers don’t always add up neatly, either. We continue to work with OPS to clarify mismatches where possible.. ∎
Oregon’s psilocybin services program recognises four types of licenses, as well as a separate worker permit required for individuals working for, or on behalf of, a licensed facility:
Data collection on licenses and permits began in early 2023. As of December 2025, a total of 626 licenses have been approved:
Figure 9. Number of licenses per type. Note: Use the Quarter selector in the top left.
As of Q2 2025, OPS has released data distinguishing approved licenses as either renewals or initial applications. By definition, any license not marked as a renewal represents a first-time approval. This data offers insight into how many licensees have remained active in the program beyond the standard one-year licensing term.
Notably, more than half of facilitator and manufacturer licenses have been renewed, indicating sustained participation. Service centers show even stronger continuity, with the majority of licenses renewed. The sole approved laboratory license has also been renewed.
Figure 9a. Approved licenses by renewal status.
The OHA specifies six requirements for licensed psilocybin facilitators: 1) aged 21 or older, 2) high school diploma or equivalent, 3) passed a criminal background check, 4) completed an OHA-approved psilocybin training program, and 5) passed a licensing exam.
A new survey of facilitators currently enrolled (or recently graduated) in an OPS-approved training programme (n=106) noted that the early workforce is generally older and highly educated, with the majority holding a graduate degree and considerable previous training or licensure, a factor which is likely to increase current costs for the services.
As of Q3 2025, facilitator numbers have continued their year-on-year rise, accounting for a significant 91% of all individual licenses in OPS (excluding worker permits). Between March 2023 and December 2025, OPS has issued 572 facilitator applications in total, with 366 of these currently licensed or ‘approved’.
Figure 10. All-time licensing totals since program initiation.
Facilitator approvals saw a steep rise during late 2024 and early 2025 but this surge has levelled out in recent months. Despite this plateau, there are still growing concerns that the number of trained facilitators is becoming unsustainable and increasingly misaligned with the number of licensed service centers and, by extension, available facilitator roles.
Many are already struggling to secure full-time employment within OPS, a challenge further compounded by 2025 legislation prohibiting facilitators from offering psilocybin services outside regulated settings. If these employment challenges persist, there is a strong likelihood that more experienced facilitators may either pursue independent work, including operating in unregulated spaces.
Additional contributing factors include the significant upfront costs for facilitators: training programs typically range from $4,500 to $12,000 (with the mean sitting around $10,000), with practicum components adding another couple of thousand dollars, typically. According to a recent survey, half of the listed training programs offer scholarships to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. Facilitators must also pay between $1,000 and $2,000 annually for licensure, plus a $150 non-refundable application fee.
Altogether, the first year can easily exceed $10,000, posing a substantial barrier to entry for many. Otherwise, training remains comparatively streamlined, with some programs requiring as few as 160 hours of instruction and a minimum eligibility requirement of a high school diploma.
While this accessibility certainly broadens entry into the field, it has also sparked concern about the adequacy of preparation. One editorial in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry noted that Oregon’s psilocybin training requires just 25% of the 625 hours mandated for a massage therapist license.
It might also be worth bearing the aforementioned training costs in mind when interpreting the data showing that zero facilitator license applications have been denied to date. Notably, while the OHA approves training programs, it does not regulate individual facilitator licensure. The burden of evaluating and endorsing candidates falls on the training programs themselves, many of which are small, privately-run enterprises. For such providers, it is possible that $12,000 may represent a significant enough investment to discourage them from rejecting a facilitator who has completed their program
Another interesting finding from recent survey data tells that the majority of facilitators currently in training (or having recently graduated) for the OPS programme are primarily interested in part-time, contractual work within the service, rather than full-time employment. These findings are perhaps unsurprising given the possibilities for insurance, tax, and banking issues afforded to psychedelic services that remain illegal at the federal level.
Since program approvals began, 31 curricula have been authorised by the OHA. As of this reporting period: 18 programs remain active, 5 have had their licenses revoked, and 8 have been surrendered.
Figure 12. OPS training program approvals and outcomes.
Again, relative to the number of service centers and the single testing lab catering for the entire state, this volume of approved training programs appears disproportionately high. This comparatively high number also raises questions around the standardisation of facilitator training, though it is possible the variation across programs—whether in cost, curriculum, or facilitation style—may offer valuable flexibility for aspiring facilitators and could play a role in broadening access across socioeconomic groups.
Oregon’s licensed psilocybin service centers operate in a range of formats—from traditional indoor settings to outdoor environments—and accommodate both individual and group sessions. The regulatory framework imposes important safeguards:
Notably, Q2 2025 marked the first recorded decline in the number of service centers approved and operational (see Figure 14). Otherwise, although approvals have generally trended upward, only 23 of the 35 licensed psilocybin service centers remain operational, marking the closure of 12 centers since early 2024, and reports of a further closure planned for the end of January 2026.
The first of these closures occurred that year, followed by eleven additional licences that have since expired or voluntarily surrendered. A key factor driving this contraction appears to be high operational costs, including a $10,000 annual licence fee, mandated security infrastructure, and stringent storage protocols. Interestingly, similar attrition patterns are emerging among manufacturer licensees, potentially reflecting declining demand expectations as service centers continue to close their doors.
Figure 14. Service center approvals and closures.
Compounding matters further is the substantial increase in administrative burden introduced by Senate Bill 303, which has resulted in several hours of paperwork per session, diverting time and resources away from client care. Critics like Mason Marks, a professor of Law, argue that “SB 303 adds unnecessary expense to an over-budget government program [and] it overburdens aspiring psilocybin businesses”. Indeed, the new requirements are likely to take a further toll on overheads. With the spectre of state funds, which contribute largely to the administrative costs of OPS, drying up, licence fees could increase even further in the near future, too.
In some cases, rather than closing outright, centers have begun scaling back operations – often in response to low client demand. A number of factors may be at play here, including limited public understanding or awareness of psilocybin services. Many rely heavily on word-of-mouth as advertising is constrained by regulations. In response, groups like the Psilocybin Alliance, an Oregon-based advocacy organisation, are working to shape more supportive legislation, raise funds, and advocate for reduced licensing fees in an effort to keep more centers in operation.
Other groups, like Healing Advocacy Fund (HAF), are working to improve the program and support operators. In a ‘roadmap’ where it earmarked $130M for the ‘future of psychedelic philanthropy’, the Psychedelic Science Funders Collaborative, which bankrolled Oregon’s psilocybin ballot initiative, called for philanthropists to support HAF in its efforts to shore up demand in Oregon and Colorado.
There have been a total of three denials across licensing domains. Two service centers have been denied owing to a failed premises inspection and proximity to a school, and one facilitator was recently denied for failing to produce an approved criminal record check
OPS accepts public complaints related to potential violations of statute or rule that occur on licensed premises or during the provision of psilocybin services. These complaints may be submitted via the OPS complaint form online, by phone, or through other public channels.
Since program launch, OPS has received 101 public complaints, some of which we have covered in previous reporting. Following investigations, 26 disciplinary actions have been taken:
Figure 15. Disciplinary actions against licensee holders.
Note: This data reflects public-submitted complaints only and does not include internally generated compliance cases initiated by OPS.
Sanctions vary based on the severity and nature of the violation, ranging from license restrictions to civil penalties.
Pα: We continue to cover how Oregon’s legally regulated psilocybin services are unfolding in practice. Drawing on a quarterly dataset from the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), this analysis offers early insight into key dimensions of program implementation.
Since its launch in January 2023, Oregon Psilocybin Services (OPS) has navigated a complex landscape of optimism and uncertainty. More than 15,000 clients have been served, generating over $1.5 million in revenue—yet structural challenges persist. Session costs ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 remain a major affordability barrier, with client demographics skewed toward higher earners and disproportionately representing white people. The in-person service requirement further limits accessibility for homebound individuals.
Operational hurdles have also emerged, including a notable rate of service center closures tied to high overhead and modest demand. Nevertheless, the program has maintained a strong safety record, with very few emergency interventions reported to date.
Psychedelic Alpha will continue to synthesise each quarterly dataset via this Oregon Psilocybin Services Tracker. To receive that straight to your inbox when it publishes, join our free newsletter. ∎
Pα+ subscribers receive regular Bulletins, articles, interviews with insiders and quick-take analysis of major stories and developments (e.g., state-level psychedelics coverage, significant trial results, policy reforms, etc.); along with access to our entire back catalog. They also receive summaries of these quarterly Oregon updates.
Psychedelic Alpha is an independent newsletter and community that strives to empower a diverse constellation of individuals and organisations with the knowledge, network and nuance to make an impact within the field of psychedelic medicine and beyond. Psy Alpha Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales (16989109).
Insights and interviews delivered to your inbox. No spam, just valuable information.
