When did AB 432 become law and what is its effective date in California?

1. What AB 432 proposed and why it mattered

AB 432, titled the Menopause Care Equity Act, sought to expand insurance coverage for evaluation and treatment of perimenopause and menopause, and to require clinician training and continuing medical education credits related to perimenopause and menopause care (assembly press materials and bill text outline these aims) ^{[4] [2]}. The California Health Benefits Review Program analyzed projected coverage and expenditure impacts for AB 432, indicating the proposal touched core health‑plan benefit design and clinical guidance topics—reason enough it attracted attention from health stakeholders and advocacy groups ^[5].

2. Did AB 432 become law?

No. Governor Newsom issued an official veto document for AB 432, indicating the bill did not become law ^[1]. The Assembly author’s site likewise notes the bill passed the Legislature but was vetoed by the Governor, reflecting near‑unanimous legislative support but an executive decision not to sign it ^[6].

3. What the bill’s operative dates would have been if signed

The bill text and legislative summaries specify discrete effective‑date language for several provisions; notably, continuing medical education credit incentives for osteopathic physicians would begin July 1, 2026 ^{[2] [3]}. Other provisions in AB 432 would have aligned with standard timing for enactment of California statutes: unless otherwise stated, statutes generally take effect January 1 following their chaptering, but the bill’s explicit July 1, 2026 provision is the clearest dated implementation item in current bill text ^{[2] [3]}. Available sources do not list a formal “chaptered” effective date because the bill was vetoed ^[1].

4. How the veto changes practical timelines for stakeholders

Because the Governor vetoed the bill, insurers, providers and regulators are not legally bound to implement AB 432’s requirements; the July 1, 2026 continuing‑education credit start date would not take effect absent new legislation ^{[1] [2]}. Advocacy groups and the bill’s author frame the issue as an ongoing policy gap—Assembly materials emphasize unmet menopause care needs—but enactment would require the Legislature to pass a revised bill and the Governor to sign it ^{[4] [6]}.

5. What the California Health Benefits Review Program said about impacts

CHBRP produced a formal analysis that examines plan coverage, clinical guidance integration, and estimated expenditure impacts if the bill were implemented; that analysis shows AB 432’s requirements would fall under basic health services and potentially require formulary adjustments and clinician guidance to conform with medical society recommendations ^[5]. CHBRP’s role is evaluative and non‑binding, offering the Legislature and stakeholders technical context for policy choices ^[5].

6. Where this leaves employers, clinicians, and insurers now

With the veto in place, existing law remains the operative authority: current insurance and medical board rules govern coverage and continuing medical education, and any change—such as the July 1, 2026 CME credit for osteopathic physicians—remains hypothetical until the Legislature and Governor act again ^{[3] [2] [1]}. Interested parties should track whether revised legislation is introduced in a future session or whether regulatory guidance changes under existing statutes ^{[5] [6]}.

Limitations and transparency note: my summary uses only the documents provided. The Governor’s veto file demonstrates the bill did not become law ^[1]. If you want the exact veto text quoted or the Legislature’s vote totals, those specifics are not presented in the provided sources and are not found in current reporting here.