Are there recent California programs for menopause treatment or HRT launched by Newsom?
Executive summary
Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed California menopause-related insurance expansion bills at least twice, most recently AB 432 (Menopause Care Equity Act) in October 2025, citing that the measures were “too far‑reaching” and risked raising healthcare costs through limits on utilization management and mandates to cover non‑FDA treatments [1] [2]. Legislators and advocates say the bills would have required coverage for evaluation and treatment — including HRT — and physician training; Newsom’s office says he wants to expand access but not via the bill as written [2] [3].
1. Newsom’s moves: vetoes, not new programs
The available reporting shows the governor vetoed bills aimed at expanding insurance coverage for menopause and perimenopause treatments — notably AB 432 — rather than launching a new state program to expand hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or menopause services; his veto message argued the bills’ coverage mandates and prohibitions on utilization management were “too far‑reaching” [1] [4]. Newsom’s spokespeople have stated publicly that he shares the goal of expanding menopause care but objected to the bills’ fiscal and policy design [5] [6].
2. What the bills would have done: insurance mandates and clinician training
Lawmakers crafted the Menopause Care Equity Act to require health plans covering outpatient prescription drugs to provide coverage for evaluation and treatment options for menopause symptoms, including hormone therapy and osteoporosis prevention, and to incentivize or require clinician continuing education on menopause care [2] [3] [4]. Supporters characterized these changes as closing an insurance‑driven access gap; proponents pointed to near‑unanimous legislative votes for AB 432 as evidence of bipartisan support [7].
3. The governor’s rationale: cost controls and utilization management
Newsom’s veto rationale, echoed in multiple outlets, centers on preserving insurers’ ability to use utilization management and avoiding mandates that might force coverage of non‑FDA‑approved treatments without customary cost controls — outcomes he and his administration warned could raise premiums or costs for millions of Californians [1] [5]. His office framed the decision as a policy disagreement over implementation, not a rejection of menopause care as a priority [5].
4. Political fallout and public response
The vetoes have provoked high‑profile criticism, including from actress and Respin founder Halle Berry, who publicly declared Newsom had “overlooked” midlife women after he twice declined to sign the bills [8] [9]. Advocates and some lawmakers argue the veto represents a policy failure given the prevalence and workplace impact of untreated menopause symptoms; the bill’s author described the veto as a missed opportunity despite overwhelming legislative support [7] [10].
5. Where HRT and gender‑affirming hormone policy diverge in coverage fights
Separate but related debates on hormone therapy have unfolded in California. Newsom signed laws that protect access to gender‑affirming care for transgender youth and created sanctuary protections for out‑of‑state patients seeking hormones or puberty blockers, while also vetoing other bills tied to utilization management or licensure changes — indicating a nuanced, issue‑by‑issue approach rather than blanket opposition to hormone care [11] [12]. Reporting notes he vetoed at least one HRT‑related bill for trans Californians citing similar utilization‑management and cost concerns [12].
6. Limits of available reporting and open questions
Available sources document vetoes and public statements but do not show Newsom launching a distinct statewide HRT or menopause treatment program to replace the vetoed bills; they also do not provide detailed actuarial estimates from the governor’s office explaining projected cost impacts in numeric form within these articles [1] [5]. The legislative analyses (CHBRP) and advocates’ claims about coverage gaps are reported, but full cost modeling and the specifics of potential compromise language are not included in the cited reporting [1] [3].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Proponents frame the bills as evidence‑based fixes to a care gap that harms productivity and women’s health; opponents (including Newsom’s administration) framed the bills as policy overreach that could unintentionally raise costs. Advocacy groups, medical societies and political actors each have incentives — improved access, cost containment, political positioning — that shape their public messaging [10] [4] [1]. High‑profile criticism from celebrities like Halle Berry amplifies public attention but also brings the politics of potential presidential ambitions into the debate [8] [9].
8. Bottom line for your query
If you are asking whether Newsom has launched new California programs to expand menopause treatment or HRT, current reporting shows he has vetoed legislative mandates to expand insurance coverage for menopause care and has not enacted the specific bill AB 432; his administration says it supports expanding care but objects to the bills’ design and cost implications [1] [5]. Available sources do not mention a separate, statewide program launched by Newsom that accomplishes the AB 432 mandates after the vetoes (not found in current reporting).