How does AB 432 change existing California statutes or regulations?
Executive summary
AB 432 would change multiple California codes: it would add menopause-related coverage requirements to the Health and Safety Code and Insurance Code, add and amend sections of the Business and Professions Code related to clinician continuing education, and create credited continuing medical education hours for osteopathic physicians in the Osteopathic Act—affecting plans covering roughly 22.2 million enrollees per CHBRP analysis [1] [2] [3] [4]. The bill passed the Legislature but was later vetoed by the Governor [1] [5].
1. What AB 432 aims to change: law-by-law breakdown
AB 432 would amend and add specific code sections: it proposes to amend Section 2191 and add Section 2190.4 to the Business and Professions Code, add Section 1367.252 to the Health and Safety Code, and add Section 10123.1962 to the Insurance Code, all targeted to expand menopause care policy and education [1]. The enrolled bill text and legislative summaries show these are explicit statutory insertions, not mere regulatory guidance [3] [1].
2. Insurance and health-plan mandates — requiring coverage for menopause care
The legislation directs health plans and insurers to provide coverage for menopause-related treatments and to align formularies and clinical guidance with professional recommendations, a change CHBRP modeled as affecting the health insurance of roughly 22,207,000 enrollees in 2026 [2] [4]. CHBRP’s report analyzes expenditure and formulary impacts under the new benefit requirements [2].
3. Professional licensing and continuing education changes
AB 432 alters continuing-education expectations: it adds menopause content to the universe of topics the Medical and Osteopathic boards must handle and establishes specific credit rules for osteopathic physicians—beginning July 1, 2026, osteopathic physicians who complete coursework in perimenopause, menopause, and postmenopausal care receive two hours credit per hour of coursework up to eight hours toward existing CME requirements [3] [6]. Trackers and bill text indicate the bill also modifies language about the Medical Board’s consideration of menopausal health courses [7] [8].
4. Practical effects on clinicians and training requirements
By creating a credited path for menopause coursework—plus statutory direction to boards—the bill pushes curricula and CME providers to offer menopause-specific modules and incentivizes clinicians to obtain training to meet credit goals [3] [2]. CHBRP assumed plans would need to provide on-formulary coverage for commonly used menopause medications, prompting insurers and providers to align clinical practice with The Menopause Society or similar guidance [2].
5. Fiscal and policy context: cost, advocacy, and legislative posture
Advocates framed AB 432 as correcting longstanding underinvestment in menopause care; op-eds and legislative offices cited high unmet need and framed the bill as part of a broader state and national push [9] [4] [10]. CHBRP produced an expenditure impact analysis estimating premium and expenditure effects, which was used in policymaking debates [2] [11]. The Legislature enacted the bill, but Governor Newsom ultimately vetoed AB 432 [1] [5].
6. What the veto changes and what remains authoritative
Because the Governor vetoed AB 432, the statutory changes described in the enrolled bill text are not law as of that veto [5] [1]. The bill text, CHBRP analysis, and legislative summaries still document what the law would have mandated and serve as the official record of proposed changes had the bill been signed [3] [2] [1].
7. Competing perspectives and gaps in coverage
Supporters argued the bill would increase access and clinician competency; CHBRP supplied modeled fiscal impacts to quantify those changes [4] [2]. Opposing viewpoints and detailed reasons for the Governor’s veto are present in the official veto message [5], but available sources do not detail every argument made by opponents in committee hearings beyond CHBRP’s fiscal modeling and legislative summaries (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the provided legislative text, CHBRP reports, advocacy materials, media commentary, and tracking pages; available sources do not mention post-veto legislative follow-ups or administrative rulemaking that would implement similar policies absent a signed bill (not found in current reporting).