Psilocybin use is on the rise as public perception changes, report shows
More Americans are using psilocybin, the hallucinogenic compound found in psychedelic mushrooms.
A report published Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine found psilocybin use has been rising since 2019, after remaining relatively stable for years.
'That tells us something is changing,' said Kari Rockhill, an epidemiologist and assistant statistical scientist at Rocky Mountain Poison & Drug Safety in Denver, who worked on the report.
In adults, a changing public perception of psychedelics is likely at the forefront of this shift — combined with decriminalization of psilocybin across several U.S. jurisdictions.
'We saw a similar phenomenon with cannabis when it started to be legalized across the country. There is probably a stigma around this that is going down,' Rockhill said.
In 2019, the city of Denver voted to decriminalize the Schedule I drug, allowing people to grow and gift, but not sell, psychedelic mushrooms that contain psilocybin. Oregon followed suit in 2020, and decriminalization expanded to the entire state of Colorado in 2022. Books like Michael Pollan's 'How to Change Your Mind' have also helped change public perception of psychedelics, said Dr. Todd Korthuis, an internist and addiction medicine specialist at Oregon Health and Science University.
'This is not surprising at all given the developments over the last 10 years,' said Korthuis, who is also co-director of the Open Psychedelic Evaluation Nexus, which conducts research on psychedelics.
Andrew Yockey, an assistant professor of public health at the University of Mississippi, added that an unregulated online market, mounting research that suggests psilocybin could be used as a treatment for mental health conditions, and a rise in microdosing also likely contributed to the increase in use. Indeed, the researchers found that psilocybin use was highest among adults with mental health or chronic pain conditions.
Rockhill and her team analyzed five national databases that included self-reported data on psilocybin use, calls made to 55 poison control centers, and medical records to get a picture of how many people used psilocybin across the nation from 2014 through 2023.
Overall, use of the drug remains relatively low: In 2023 — the most recent year for which data was available — just about 2% of adults in the U.S. said they had taken psilocybin in the past year. Twelve percent reported ever taking the drug, up from 10% in 2019, when rates began to increase.
Among adults ages 18 to 29, past-year psilocybin use rose by 44%, to 2.1% in 2023; for adults ages 30 and up, use nearly tripled, to 1.8% in 2023. About 2.5% of 12th graders reported using psilocybin in the last year in 2023, a 53% increase from 2019.
'It is interesting to see the rise in adolescents,' Yockey said. 'I want to see where they are getting it from, why they are taking it.'
The study also found that calls to poison control centers for psilocybin rose sharply over the study period, particularly among children ages 11 and under. In 2023, calls for this age group rose 723% from 2019, though the rates were still low, at less than one child per 100,000 people. For children 12 to 18, calls increased 317%, to just over two people per 100,000. Adults saw a 200% increase in calls, rising to a rate of less than half a person per 100,000.
In addition, 1,550 people, including 1,192 adults, sought medical care because of psilocybin in 2023. From 2015 to 2021, there were just three cases involving medical care.
The calls to poison control for the children under 11 in the report were almost certainly due to kids getting into psilocybin edibles that were not meant for them, Korthuis said.
Although psilocybin alone has a relatively safe toxicology profile, meaning it's highly unlikely to cause life-threatening physical health problems, an unregulated market of edibles can lead to people ingesting things other than psilocybin, even if the packaging does not list them, Yockey said.
'If someone comes to the ER saying I have psilocybin exposure, one of the first things a doctor should do is test for it,' he added.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi: Budget debate in Washington ignores the human cost in Illinois
The latest political fight over President Donald Trump's self-described 'big, beautiful bill' might seem pretty remote — unless you happen to be one of the millions of individuals who could be affected. Take one of my constituents who contacted my office just a few weeks ago. She was diagnosed with breast cancer and had been receiving Medicaid. But the cost of treatment was too high, and her family had to sell their home and move into temporary housing to pay for it. As a result of that move, this person missed her annual redetermination notice to confirm her continued eligibility and was dropped from the Medicaid program. For the past few months, she has been desperately trying to get back on the program but hasn't received a response from federal officials. Now, she is running dangerously low on her lifesaving medications. After she contacted us, my office reached out to the Social Security Administration to find out why her address wasn't updated and why her appeal for reinstatement wasn't processed more quickly given the nature of her illness. We will continue to press the SSA for answers and quick action. Multiply this person's experience by 13.7 million. That's the number of Americans who could lose Medicaid under Trump's budget bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In Illinois alone, Medicaid supports the health and economic security of 3.4 million people. Cuts or caps to federal Medicaid funding would force Illinois taxpayers to fill the gap or result in service reductions for everyone. The Trump budget plan, recently approved by the House on a party-line vote of 215-214, would cut at least $625 billion from Medicaid. But this doesn't nearly pay for the budget's additional tax cuts, which go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Americans and large corporations. Instead, the bill adds trillions more to the national debt — possibly raising interest rates and bringing on a recession. Three changes account for most of the Medicaid cuts in the bill: requiring states to implement onerous, unnecessary paperwork and administrative requirements for many recipients; increasing barriers to enrolling in and renewing Medicaid coverage; and limiting states' ability to raise their share of Medicaid revenues through provider taxes. The bill's supporters say these new paperwork hurdles will reduce waste and fraud in the program. But 58% of Illinois Medicaid recipients already are working, and most of the rest are not able to work due to their own disability or caring for a close family member. Overall, the bill is projected to strip nearly a million Illinoisans on Medicaid of their health care. These cuts would take a particularly devastating toll on our state's rural residents, whose hospitals and health systems rely heavily on Medicaid patients. Already, eight Illinois rural hospitals are at risk of immediate closure, which will be worsened by the Medicaid cuts in the Trump budget. Those closures would affect the health care of all local residents, regardless of whether they receive their care under Medicaid or private plans. Already, we are seeing people such as my constituent struggling to keep their eligibility for Medicaid. If the Senate passes Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' there will be a lot more losing their eligibility and being kicked off the program. With the Senate about to take up the Trump plan, there's still time to remember the faces and families behind the numbers and ask ourselves whether this bill truly reflects our values as Americans. U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat, has represented Illinois' 8th Congressional District since 2017.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump gives his thoughts on Elon Musk amid clash on bill President Donald Trump responded to Elon Musk's criticism of his "big, beautiful bill" with disappointment as Musk responded on X. A centerpiece of Donald Trump's tax bill would make millions of Medicaid recipients work, volunteer or study to maintain their publicly-financed health insurance. Republicans say the work requirement is vital to protect taxpayers while motivating nondisabled Medicaid recipients to take charge of their physical and fiscal health. Dr. Mehmet Oz challenged this population to "prove that you matter." But health advocacy groups and analysts say most recipients already work in jobs that don't provide affordable health insurance or pay enough for people to afford their own insurance. They say mandating a Medicaid work requirement − combined with more frequent eligibility checks − would create an administrative nightmare that drops coverage for many who qualify for the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled residents. What is Medicaid churn? Medicaid rolls vary from month to month as people lose eligibility due to a new job, a raise or other income source that disqualifies them for coverage. A job loss or change in life circumstances could make someone newly eligible. The constant change of Medicaid rolls is what health policy experts call churn. A person who temporarily loses coverage due to a paperwork issue or mistake then must again sign up. "Churn is what happens when these eligibility systems become difficult to navigate," said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the program on Medicaid and the uninsured for KFF, a health policy nonprofit. The federal government requires state Medicaid programs to check enrollees eligibility once a year. The Trump tax cut legislation would mandate states double eligibility checks to twice a year. And states would have the added duty of verifying a person's employment or exemption status. The legislation, which passed the House and awaits Senate approval, mandates Medicaid recipients who are "able-bodied" adults without children work 80 hours per month or qualify for an exemption such as being a student, caregiver or having a disability. The bill defines able-bodied as people who are not medically certified as physically or unfit for employment. The legislation also would strip coverage from undocumented immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs. Health policy experts say more frequent eligibility checks and red tape will add administrative costs and cut off people who qualify but fall through the cracks due to administrative miscues. "People are going to have to document work status or exemption status multiple times a year, and at each point there's a risk that someone who is eligible could lose coverage," Tolbert said. Thousands lost coverage under Arkansas work requirement During the first Trump administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave states the option of implementing a work requirement for nondisabled adults on Medicaid. Arkansas' work requirement cut more than 18,000 residents from Medicaid within the first seven months of the program. People were removed often because people were unaware of paperwork requirements to keep their coverage, research shows and analysts said. In April, a study by researchers from the Urban Institute and Loyola University Chicago found the Arkansas uninsured rate jumped 7.4 percentage points among low-income adults age 30 to 49 after the state's work requirement began. The policy's impact on employment among that age group was "negative, small and statistically insignificant," the study said. Arkansas adults who didn't have access to the internet at home were disproportionately harmed by the policy, a sign adults might've had trouble accessing the state's online portal to report work histories or exemptions, the Urban Institute said. If the work requirement for Medicaid recipients is adopted nationwide, health experts say millions of working poor Americans will inevitably lose coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated 10.9 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage through 2034 under the legislation. Most would lose coverage due to the Medicaid work requirement and the twice-a-year eligibility checks, but about 3.1 million would become uninsured from tweaks to Affordable Care Act enrollment, according to a KFF analysis. The ranks of the uninsured could grow larger if Congress doesn't extend the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits that have made ACA plans more affordable for consumers. If the tax credits expire and Congress passes the current version of the Trump tax bill, as many as 16 million Americans would lose coverage , according to CBO. "Coverage loss from work requirements should actually be very small," said Kathy Hempstead, a senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "But we anticipate it will be very large, because people will not be able to comply with the requirements and will lose their coverage." Dr. Oz: Medicaid spending is 'crippling the system' The Trump administration's top Medicaid official has defended the House legislation as a necessary step to slow spending for the federal health program that covers nearly 80 million low-income and disabled Americans. In a June 4 interview with Fox Business, Dr. Oz challenged Medicaid recipients who would face work requirements should "prove that you matter." Oz, the Trump-appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said the work requirement asks "able-bodied individuals who are able to go back to work at least try to get a job or volunteer or take care of a loved one who needs help or go back into school. Do something to show you have agency over your future." In a Fox News interview posted on the social media site X, Oz said Medicaid spending has surged 50% since 2019, a pace that is "crippling the system." However, some Republicans have pushed back on the proposed cuts. In a May opinion piece in the New York Times, Sen. Josh Hawley, R- Missouri, said "slashing health insurance for the working poor" is "morally wrong and politically suicidal." Survey: Americans worried about Medicaid cuts The public is paying attention to the proposed Medicaid cuts. Slightly more than half of adults said they're worried significant cuts in Medicaid spending would negatively affect their family's ability to obtain and afford health care, according to a KFF health tracking poll released June 6. The survey this survey of 2,539 U.S. adults was conducted online and by telephone over three weeks in May. The survey said nearly 6 in 10 adults said the Trump administration's policies would weaken Medicaid, but there is a stark divide based on party affiliation. Nine in 10 Democrats but just 2 in 10 Republicans expect the administration's policies would weaken Medicaid. Republicans also were far more likely than Democrats to say that the Trump's policies would strengthen Medicaid. Still, while the survey suggests people are tracking the news, many likely wouldn't know whether their coverage has changed until they try to get medical care. "People don't often know that they've lost coverage until they try and fill a prescription or see a doctor," Tolbert said.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Americans Are Suffering From 'Time Poverty'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. With labor market uncertainty, jobs rewarding employees for "going the extra mile" and competing responsibilities inside and outside the workplace, a growing number of Americans are suffering from what experts refer to as "time poverty." The term has been increasingly adopted by psychologists to denote the chronic imbalance between the time a person requires and that which their work life allows them. A new survey by wellness firm Wondr Health revealed the extent of the issue, finding that the majority (62 percent) of U.S. workers do not take their allotted time off because of the internalized pressures of work and let about one-third of their annual vacation days go unspent. "No one is harder on most of us than ourselves and it leads to time poverty, a condition where we simply do not have enough time for a meaningful work-life balance," said Dr. Tim Church, chief medical officer at Wondr Health. "This is a wakeup call for employees and their employers. It's time to rethink workplace culture." A growing number of Americans are suffering from what experts refer to as "time poverty." A growing number of Americans are suffering from what experts refer to as "time poverty." Annie Ng/AP Illustration David Ballard, vice president of One Mind at Work, a company focused on mental health solutions for the workplace, said: "Some work cultures actually discourage taking time off, reward overworking, and position stress and being on 24/7 as a badge of honor. "In this type of environment, employees may avoid taking time off because they would feel guilty or worry they would be seen unfavorably or be penalized if they did." Ron Goetzel, senior scientist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and an expert in employee well-being, told Newsweek that the issue of time poverty "takes a toll on individuals, businesses and the larger society." "Although all of us are given 24 hours in a day, people feel they need to cram in as much activity into that time as possible—without sitting back and asking whether the activity enhances their quality of life, happiness and a sense of accomplishment, or not." The mental health implications have already become clear. According to a 2020 study, time poverty is linked to lower mental well-being, productivity and even physical health. Researchers also found that "subjective feelings of time poverty had a stronger negative effect on well-being than being unemployed." Despite this, they noted that the issue was one that had long gone underappreciated by either policymakers or employers. This is in spite of the potential deleterious impacts, not just on individuals, but on the businesses themselves. As workplace wellness experts and psychologists told Newsweek, time poverty among workers can mean lower productivity, higher rates of absenteeism or presenteeism—employees being at work but not fully functional—and increased employee turnover. "Employees that don't take time off are at risk for burnout, which is detrimental to both the employee and the business," said Dr. Chloe Carmichael, a clinical psychologist known for her work on anxiety and stress management. "The employees can also become resentful of the employer and less productive." Church added: "It's costly, plain and simple. When employees are burnt out or stressed, productivity and creativity drop. That's lost potential right there." This is indicative of the wider struggles of stress in the workplace, which several studies have linked to employees looking for opportunities elsewhere. "Burnout is a complex, multi-factorial problem, but we know for sure that chronic exposure to work-related stress, without the ability to recover, leads inevitably to mental and emotional exhaustion, detachment and decreased productivity and effectiveness," wellness expert Dr. Susan Biali Haas told Newsweek. Yasemin Besen-Cassino, a sociologist at Montclair State University, said the current climate in the U.S. labor had added to this troubling status quo, which she described as "overwork culture," with mass layoffs and broader economic uncertainty weighing on employees' minds. In addition, she told Newsweek that new technologies permitting workers to be ever-present made many feel they must contribute to work via emails or zoom calls even during off days. She added that many workers choose to use their paid time off to provide child care because of lack of affordable alternatives. "Therefore many workers are not recharging on these days, but rather performing caregiving," she told Newsweek. However, experts pointed to potential remedies—some easy, others not—that could limit the exposure to workplace stress to the benefit of employees and employers. Carmichael suggested that businesses consider mandatory time off, which would "remove the potential for internalized pressure." Author and stress researcher Rebecca Heiss said that taking vacations was far from a panacea for workplace-related stress, as despite a yoga retreat or week away employees will "ultimately will have to return to work and when we do all of those emails and projects are waiting for us and have compounded." Some pointed to the need for allotted "mental health days," as well as the willingness of businesses to invest in employee wellness programs and foster open communication with their workforces. Others advocated a wider cultural shift that would need to take place. "It's important to create a culture where taking a vacation is normalized and encouraged so that workers can fully recharge," Besen-Cassino said. "Shifting workplace culture can ensure workers can take vacations and are healthier and more productive in the long run." While employers might be reticent, Church said it is in their interest to consider the stress on their workers. "Maybe most importantly, businesses risk losing their best people," he said. "If the culture doesn't support rest and wellness, employees look for other places where their well-being is valued. "Addressing burnout and time poverty isn't just about being better employers, it's smart business."
