House Bill 6020 would create a new state grant program and research fund for ibogaine, a psychedelic substance currently listed as a Schedule 1 controlled substance under Michigan law. The bill establishes the ibogaine grant program within the Department of Health and Human Services to support certified clinical drug development trials overseen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, with a focus on treating opioid use disorder, co-occurring substance use disorder, and other neurological or mental health conditions for which ibogaine shows efficacy. It also creates the ibogaine research fund in the state treasury and directs the state treasurer and DHHS to manage deposits, investments, audits, and expenditures for the program.
The bill would appropriate $50 million from the Michigan opioid healing and recovery fund for fiscal year 2026 to seed the ibogaine research fund, with the money required to be used consistently with the opioid settlement or judgment source from which it came. It sets eligibility criteria for grant recipients, including in-state location, research and treatment expertise, neurosurgical and cardiac intensive care capability, and participation in a consortium or agreement tied to FDA investigational new drug and breakthrough therapy efforts. The bill also authorizes DHHS to facilitate a multi-state consortium involving Michigan, at least one drug developer, a Michigan higher education institution, a Michigan hospital or licensed health facility, and at least one other state.
In addition to the research provisions, the bill would change Michigan controlled substances law by carving out ibogaine from Schedule 1 when used in compliance with the new research program or, if later approved by the FDA, when prescribed and administered under the bill’s medical-use rules. If ibogaine is approved by the FDA for a medical condition, only a physician could prescribe it, and administration would have to occur in a hospital or other licensed health facility under physician supervision. The bill also directs DHHS to promulgate rules to ensure ibogaine is administered only under approved protocols.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s progression is supportive or at least favorable enough to advance, as indicated by the last action of “recommendation concurred in,” but there is no recorded committee transcript or vote breakdown in the provided materials. The structure of the bill suggests a policy interest in expanding research into opioid addiction treatment and other neurological conditions while maintaining medical oversight and federal regulatory alignment. Because no discussion record is provided, specific arguments for or against the bill are not documented here.
The main points of contention likely center on the use of opioid settlement funds for a psychedelic drug research initiative, the safety and efficacy of ibogaine, and whether the state should facilitate research on a substance that remains federally controlled absent FDA approval. The bill attempts to address those concerns by limiting funding to FDA-supervised clinical trials, requiring qualified in-state institutions and cardiac intensive care capacity, and preserving federal-law compliance. Potential supporters would include opioid treatment advocates, research institutions, and health systems interested in novel therapies, while skeptics may focus on regulatory risk, medical safety, and the appropriateness of dedicating settlement dollars to this purpose.
The bill would amend Michigan’s Public Health Code to create new sections governing ibogaine research and potential medical use, and it would modify Schedule 1 controlled substance provisions to exempt ibogaine when used under the bill’s research or post-approval conditions. It would also create a new state treasury fund, authorize DHHS rulemaking and grant administration, and appropriate $50 million from the Michigan opioid healing and recovery fund for ibogaine research purposes. The measure would affect DHHS, the state treasurer, eligible research institutions, hospitals, drug developers, and any future physicians prescribing ibogaine after FDA approval.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was viewed positively enough to receive a recommendation concurred in, but there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts to show broader debate. On its face, the bill reflects a pro-research, pro-treatment sentiment aimed at addressing opioid use disorder and related neurological or mental health conditions through tightly controlled clinical development. The absence of recorded opposition or testimony in the provided materials limits the ability to identify a more detailed consensus or divide.
The likely controversy is whether Michigan should invest $50 million in ibogaine research using opioid settlement funds, especially for a substance that is still federally controlled and not broadly approved for medical use. Another likely point of contention is the safety profile of ibogaine, including the bill’s requirement for cardiac intensive care capability and physician supervision, which signals concern about medical risk. Supporters would emphasize the need for new opioid treatment options and FDA-supervised research pathways, while opponents may question efficacy, fiscal priority, and whether the state should facilitate a multi-state consortium around a psychedelic therapy.