‘A national movement': More than a dozen states consider laws around menopause care and training for doctors
From New York to California, lawmakers are weighing whether to support more menopause training for clinicians or mandate comprehensive insurance coverage for menopause treatment. Advocates of such legislation argue that these changes could improve access to care and reduce the risk that menopause symptoms will be dismissed by providers.
At least two dozen bills have been introduced across 15 states this year, according to data from Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, executive director of the Birnbaum Women's Leadership Center at the New York University School of Law, and her colleagues who have been tracking menopause legislation.
Most of the legislation is related to insurance coverage for menopause care, awareness and education, clinician training or menopause in the workplace.
When it comes to menopause care, there continues to be a 'lack of standardized treatment protocols' and 'inadequate insurance coverage for evidence-based therapies like hormone replacement,' Dr. Mary Claire Haver, an ob/gyn at the Mary Claire Wellness Clinic in Galveston, Texas, and author of the book 'The New Menopause,' said in an email.
She hopes that some of the new legislation introduced this year – and future policies – may change that.
Menopause is a natural phase of aging in which a woman has gone at least 12 consecutive months without a menstrual period due to a decline in her reproductive hormones. These hormonal changes can cause uncomfortable symptoms, including hot flashes, insomnia, vaginal and urinary problems, mood changes and weight gain, and can have long-term health implications.
In the United States, an estimated 1.3 million women enter menopause each year, and most have symptoms.
'For decades, menopause has been overlooked in both clinical research and health care policy, largely because it affects women in midlife — a group that has historically been underrepresented and undervalued in medicine,' said Haver, who collaborated with Weiss-Wolf on developing A Citizen's Guide to Menopause Advocacy.
'Women in midlife are speaking out, demanding better care, and using their voices on platforms where they've historically been ignored,' she said. 'We're also seeing more female physicians, researchers, and public figures normalize the conversation around menopause — which is finally translating into policy discussions and workplace changes.'
As the 2025 legislative session has come to an end in most states, some more recently introduced menopause bills may be up for action next year.
Most of the bills may not become laws, but that's not a loss, said Weiss-Wolf, author of the book 'Periods Gone Public: Taking a Stand for Menstrual Equity.'
'This only sets us up for what I hope will be a really impactful, successful state legislative session in 2026,' she said. 'So, for me as an advocate, I'm not only marking success by bills passed, but just that the conversation has gotten to the point where state legislators are willing to step out on this issue.'
Two bills introduced in March relate to raising awareness around menopause, according to Weiss-Wolf and her colleagues. One Illinois bill, passed in May, declares October 12-18 to be Menopause Awareness Week in the state. The other bill, introduced in Nevada, would have designated October as Menopause Awareness Month, but it was vetoed by the governor in June.
Seven bills were introduced this year related to education, aiming to enable health care providers with more education about menopause treatment or requiring health departments to distribute educational resources for the public. One, in Maine, was signed by the governor and enacted last week.
When it comes to enhancing menopause training for clinicians, California and New Jersey both introduced bills related to those themes this year. In California, legislation would require an assessment of physicians' education and training on menopause diagnosis and treatment. In New Jersey, the bill would permit up to three credits of continuing medical education on menopause to be used by providers to renew their licenses.
Meanwhile, five bills have been introduced related to requiring insurance coverage for menopause care. One in New Jersey passed the Assembly, and one in Oregon is awaiting the governor's signature.
'This is absolutely a national movement, and the momentum is undeniable. It's not just happening in California — Washington State, Oregon, Illinois, and Louisiana have all had bills either introduced or successfully passed in this space, with most of them looking to create similar insurance coverage mandates,' California Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan said in an email.
This year, Bauer-Kahan introduced Assembly Bill 432, which would mandate coverage for menopause evaluation and treatment options, among other orders. She said the bill was born out of her own experience of having perimenopausal symptoms and being dismissed when she asked her doctors for care.
'I didn't know what was happening to me. So like many people would, I went to my internist. She said I was fine. But I knew I wasn't fine. I knew something was fundamentally wrong with my body. I went to my ob/gyn. Here I am, a woman in my mid-40s, telling my doctor that my brain isn't working properly, and once again, I was dismissed as 'fine,' ' Bauer-Kahan said in the email.
'Women are over half the population, and yet our healthcare system fails to provide us with the care we need as we age,' she wrote. 'This legislation closes the care gap, ensuring that menopause is treated as the central health need it is, not as an afterthought. We deserve comprehensive coverage and informed medical care, just like any other stage of life.'
A Rhode Island bill related to menopause in the workplace was signed into law last week, making it the first state to enact workplace protections for menopausal women – and more could be coming. Legislation introduced this year in New York and New Jersey aims to address menopause in the workplace by preventing discrimination, extending workplace protections and requiring employers to allow remote work or paid leave for employees with symptoms.
Then there are a few other bills, such as in Massachusetts and New York, related to a combination of menopause issues.
'What's particularly encouraging is that menopause crosses party lines,' Bauer-Kahan said. 'On the Assembly floor, my bill passed 70-1. This isn't a political issue; it's about recognizing that half our population deserves proper healthcare.'
Of the menopause bills introduced this year so far, 11 are in committee, seven have passed in some capacity with four to be enacted, five either were vetoed or died in committee and one was amended.
What appears to be a renewed interest in menopause policy comes after more than two decades of 'silence' around menopause, said Dr. Sharon Malone, chief medical adviser at Alloy Women's Health and author of the book 'Grown Woman Talk.'
In 2002, a national Women's Health Initiative study was terminated early after it linked hormone therapy for menopause to an increased risk of breast cancer. The Women's Health Initiative is an ongoing research project conducted by the US National Institutes of Health, focused on preventing disease in older women.
Although the objective of the study was never to test the use of menopausal hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause, and it was halted early without definitive findings, it had long-lasting impacts on menopause care in the United States. Many women stopped using hormone therapy because of the study, and some practitioners no longer recommended it for their patients.
But since then, a growing body of research has found that the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh any small risks for most women with menopause symptoms, emphasizing that hormone therapy can be an effective way to treat symptoms because it helps replace the hormones that the body stops making during menopause.
Next week, the US Food and Drug Administration plans to hold a public discussion about menopause and hormone replacement therapy for women. The panel will include FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and Dr. Sara Brenner, the agency's principal deputy commissioner, who are expected to discuss treatments, education and comprehensive care beyond managing symptoms.
Years of physician training and research around menopause care and hormone therapy was lost after 2002, Malone said.
'We are still digging ourselves out of a hole of the past 23 years, understanding that there are 23 years of physicians who have not been trained in how to treat and how to deal with conditions of women during menopause. So, if you graduated from medical school and trained any time after the year 2000, you probably were never even given a fair discussion of hormone therapy,' Malone said.
'And the biggest problem that we're facing now is that there's 23 years of research that wasn't done because everybody took the Women's Health Initiative as the definitive answer, which it was not,' she said. 'If I could wave a magic wand, what I would do is eliminate the disinformation that's out there about hormone therapy.'
Dr. Monica Christmas, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Chicago and associate medical director for The Menopause Society, finished medical school and started residency around the time the Women's Health Initiative findings were released in the early 2000s.
'At that time, there was a lot of fear and trepidation around hormone therapy in particular,' said Christmas, who also serves as director of the menopause program at UChicago Medicine.
'I was fortunate that where I did residency, here in Chicago, I was trained by gynecologists who managed menopausal patients. Looking back on it now, they were probably menopausal themselves,' she said. 'And they were still fairly comfortable with prescribing hormone therapy and really understood what later the data came back to show – that, yes, there's this window of opportunity where the benefits seem to outweigh the risks for most people. That window is under the age of 60 or within 10 years of the onset of menopause.'
Increased menopause awareness and additional education for providers are important issues, Christmas said, but she views extended coverage for menopause care and the treatment of symptoms as the most pressing matter.
'Physicians can have a wealth of knowledge, which they do; however, if the person's insurance doesn't cover treatment, then it stops there,' Christmas said, adding that it's not fair to put responsibility on health care practitioners alone to change the landscape of menopause care. 'The policy focus needs to be on ensuring comprehensive and equitable access to medical care, resources for innovative research and new treatment options, and supportive work conditions.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
UnitedHealth Group Just Released More Bad News. Should You Avoid the Stock?
Key Points UnitedHealth's recent numbers showed a deep decline in profit. The company's earnings forecast for 2025 came in well below analyst expectations. The stock is trading at a significant discount and is well below where it has been in recent years. 10 stocks we like better than UnitedHealth Group › Things are going from bad to worse for UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH). Investors were already enduring a tough year in 2025, with the company facing myriad bits of bad news, including poor financial results, a change in CEO, and an investigation involving the Department of Justice. Then, the company reported its latest earnings numbers last Tuesday, and shares fell again. As of the close of trading on July 31, the stock had lost half of its value in 2025. And worst of all, it may not have bottomed out just yet. After the company's recent earnings report, which featured even more bad news, investors shouldn't be surprised to see this struggling stock fall even lower in the weeks and months ahead. Are you better off simply avoiding it, or could UnitedHealth actually make for a good contrarian investment? UnitedHealth's forecast badly missed expectations On July 29, UnitedHealth reported its latest earnings numbers, and while the business was growing, its bottom line wasn't. Revenue for the period ending June 30 totaled $111.6 billion and rose by a modest 2% from the same period last year. But what was concerning was that its earnings (the bottom line), which totaled $5.2 billion, were down a staggering 43%. A big problem for the health insurer is rising medical costs. Its medical care ratio rose from 85.1% a year ago to 89.4% this past quarter, which signifies that it's paying out a higher amount of medical expenses relative to the premiums it collects. The higher the ratio, the less profitable the company. In recent years, patients have been resuming treatments and electing to take surgeries that they put off during the earlier days of the pandemic, which has contributed to this increase. Earlier this year, the healthcare company suspended its guidance amid uncertainty around healthcare costs. But under CEO Stephen Hemsley, who took over from Andrew Witty a few months ago, it has released new guidance. The problem is, it's far below what analysts were expecting. UnitedHealth's adjusted earnings per share is projected to come in at $16 or better this year, but Wall Street was expecting $20.91 in adjusted per-share profit. Unsurprisingly, amid such a drastic shortfall, the stock proceeded to drop yet again after the news. How cheap is UnitedHealth stock right now? Shares of UnitedHealth haven't been trading this low since the COVID-19 crash of 2020. Its five-year return is now -16% before factoring in dividends. Based on analyst earnings estimates, the stock is trading at a forward price-to-earnings multiple of 13. But if analysts reduce their expectations for the stock, then that earnings multiple could end up rising. Based on the company's trailing earnings, investors are paying a multiple of around 11. The chart below shows just how extremely low that is compared to where UnitedHealth stock has traded in the past. The stock is trading at a significant discount and could potentially make for an intriguing investment option. Should you avoid UnitedHealth stock, or take a chance on it? Things look bleak for UnitedHealth's stock as the bad news just keeps coming. But if you're willing to take a contrarian position in the company, be patient, and plan to hang on for multiple years, it may not be a bad move to invest in the business today. Given how significantly discounted it is, there's a good margin of safety here for investors. Consider that the average stock on the S&P 500 trades at a price-to-earnings multiple of 25 -- UnitedHealth is nowhere near that. It could take time for the business to turn things around, but it is working on improving profitability, including exiting some Medicare Advantage markets to curb costs. And with an attractive dividend that yields more than 3% as I write this, there's plenty of incentive just to buy and wait. There's some risk with the stock, but I think the sell-off is a bit overblown. While I wouldn't expect a quick turnaround, UnitedHealth can be a good long-term stock to buy on weakness. Should you buy stock in UnitedHealth Group right now? Before you buy stock in UnitedHealth Group, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and UnitedHealth Group wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $631,505!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,103,313!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,039% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 181% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025 David Jagielski has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends UnitedHealth Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. UnitedHealth Group Just Released More Bad News. Should You Avoid the Stock? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
More than half of the calories US kids and adults consume are from ultraprocessed foods
Most of the American diet is comprised of calories from ultraprocessed foods, which have been linked to a myriad of poor health outcomes and are a key target in US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s agenda to Make America Health Again. A new report published Thursday by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that there has been some improvement in recent years, but ultraprocessed foods still account for more than half of the calories consumed by both children and adults in the United States. From August 2021 to August 2023, about 53% of the calories consumed by adults in the US came from ultraprocessed foods, according to the CDC report. The share was even higher among children, who got about 62% of their diet from ultraprocessed foods on average. That's a decrease from 2017-2018 when ultraprocessed foods comprised 56% of the adult diet and nearly 66% among children. Ultraprocessed foods are typically high in calories, added sugar, sodium and saturated fat and low in fiber. They have been linked to weight gain and obesity and the development of chronic conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Such foods may even shorten life. 'There are no health benefits associated with eating ultraprocessed foods,' said Dr. Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist with Environmental Working Group, a health advocacy organization. She did not review the new CDC report. Calories from ultraprocessed foods can add up quickly because they tend to be extra tasty and dense, with a large amount of calories in small amount of food, experts say. 'It's unrealistic to not eat any ultraprocessed foods,' Stoiber said, referencing celebrations that call for cake and ice cream and the general value in enjoying food. 'But as much as we can shift our diet to whole foods, that's going to be better for us.' People also eat what is available to them, experts say. Up to 70% of the US food supply is made up of ultraprocessed foods, and they're often cheaper than making a dish from scratch. The new CDC report found that diets of the wealthiest adults had a significantly smaller share of calories from ultraprocessed foods than those with lower family incomes. But there was not as much variation among children based on family income. Dr. Jamie Chriqui, a senior associate dean at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health who has spent decades researching nutrition policy, says that many low-income food assistance programs are centered around children – and there is precedent for restricting ultraprocessed foods in these social programs. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP – previously known as food stamps – is an exception, she said. SNAP is geared more toward the whole family, and there has historically been little restriction on how those benefits are used. With SNAP, 'there is no incentive to purchase one thing over another,' said Chriqui, who did not review the new CDC report. 'If I'm a family and I'm using my SNAP dollar, I'm going to purchase whatever I can to extend the money as far as I can,' she said. 'So if they are in a community where healthier options are more expensive than the ultraprocessed foods, they're probably going to default to the ultraprocessed foods.' Kennedy has encouraged states to submit waivers that would restrict certain foods from SNAP benefits, with at least a dozen states filing for changes so far this year. Still, ultraprocessed foods have comprised a significantly larger share of the diets of children than adults in the US for at least the past decade, according to the new CDC report. In May, a MAHA report on children's health identified ultraprocessed foods as a key driver of the 'chronic disease epidemic in children.' The report was rife with errors, including citations to some studies that didn't exist, but experts agree that children are especially vulnerable to the negative effects of ultraprocessed foods. 'When you're young, that is when you are forming food habits which you're likely to have throughout the rest of your life. So it's a critical time of development that sets you up for all the rest of your life stages,' Stoiber said. 'If that's what you're used to, you may continue to eat those foods…leading to not just the short-term exposure, but a longer-term exposure.' Children are also often targeted with advertising for these foods, she said. Burgers and other sandwiches were found to be the largest contributors of calories from ultraprocessed foods for both kids and adults, followed by sweet bakery products. Together, these two foods accounted for nearly one in every seven calories consumed in the average American diet, according to the CDC report. The report also found savory snacks and sweetened beverages to be among the top calorie contributors, along with pizza for children. For the new CDC report, dietary habits were based on responses to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, with foods assessed according to NOVA, a recognized system of categorizing foods by their level of processing. Last month, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Agriculture announced plans to collect more information and data on ultraprocessed foods with a goal to help establish a more formal definition. 'Ultra-processed foods are driving our chronic disease epidemic,' Kennedy said in a statement at the time. 'We must act boldly to eliminate the root causes of chronic illness and improve the health of our food supply. Defining ultra-processed foods with a clear, uniform standard will empower us even more to Make America Healthy Again.' CNN's Sandee LaMotte and Andrea Kane contributed to this report.


CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
More than half of the calories US kids and adults consume are from ultraprocessed foods
Federal agencies Food & health Chronic diseasesFacebookTweetLink Follow Most of the American diet is comprised of calories from ultraprocessed foods, which have been linked to a myriad of poor health outcomes and are a key target in US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s agenda to Make America Health Again. A new report published Thursday by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that there has been some improvement in recent years, but ultraprocessed foods still account for more than half of the calories consumed by both children and adults in the United States. From August 2021 to August 2023, about 53% of the calories consumed by adults in the US came from ultraprocessed foods, according to the CDC report. The share was even higher among children, who got about 62% of their diet from ultraprocessed foods on average. That's a decrease from 2017-2018 when ultraprocessed foods comprised 56% of the adult diet and nearly 66% among children. Ultraprocessed foods are typically high in calories, added sugar, sodium and saturated fat and low in fiber. They have been linked to weight gain and obesity and the development of chronic conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Such foods may even shorten life. 'There are no health benefits associated with eating ultraprocessed foods,' said Dr. Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist with Environmental Working Group, a health advocacy organization. She did not review the new CDC report. Calories from ultraprocessed foods can add up quickly because they tend to be extra tasty and dense, with a large amount of calories in small amount of food, experts say. 'It's unrealistic to not eat any ultraprocessed foods,' Stoiber said, referencing celebrations that call for cake and ice cream and the general value in enjoying food. 'But as much as we can shift our diet to whole foods, that's going to be better for us.' People also eat what is available to them, experts say. Up to 70% of the US food supply is made up of ultraprocessed foods, and they're often cheaper than making a dish from scratch. The new CDC report found that diets of the wealthiest adults had a significantly smaller share of calories from ultraprocessed foods than those with lower family incomes. But there was not as much variation among children based on family income. Dr. Jamie Chriqui, a senior associate dean at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health who has spent decades researching nutrition policy, says that many low-income food assistance programs are centered around children – and there is precedent for restricting ultraprocessed foods in these social programs. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP – previously known as food stamps – is an exception, she said. SNAP is geared more toward the whole family, and there has historically been little restriction on how those benefits are used. With SNAP, 'there is no incentive to purchase one thing over another,' said Chriqui, who did not review the new CDC report. 'If I'm a family and I'm using my SNAP dollar, I'm going to purchase whatever I can to extend the money as far as I can,' she said. 'So if they are in a community where healthier options are more expensive than the ultraprocessed foods, they're probably going to default to the ultraprocessed foods.' Kennedy has encouraged states to submit waivers that would restrict certain foods from SNAP benefits, with at least a dozen states filing for changes so far this year. Still, ultraprocessed foods have comprised a significantly larger share of the diets of children than adults in the US for at least the past decade, according to the new CDC report. In May, a MAHA report on children's health identified ultraprocessed foods as a key driver of the 'chronic disease epidemic in children.' The report was rife with errors, including citations to some studies that didn't exist, but experts agree that children are especially vulnerable to the negative effects of ultraprocessed foods. 'When you're young, that is when you are forming food habits which you're likely to have throughout the rest of your life. So it's a critical time of development that sets you up for all the rest of your life stages,' Stoiber said. 'If that's what you're used to, you may continue to eat those foods…leading to not just the short-term exposure, but a longer-term exposure.' Children are also often targeted with advertising for these foods, she said. Burgers and other sandwiches were found to be the largest contributors of calories from ultraprocessed foods for both kids and adults, followed by sweet bakery products. Together, these two foods accounted for nearly one in every seven calories consumed in the average American diet, according to the CDC report. The report also found savory snacks and sweetened beverages to be among the top calorie contributors, along with pizza for children. For the new CDC report, dietary habits were based on responses to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, with foods assessed according to NOVA, a recognized system of categorizing foods by their level of processing. Last month, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Agriculture announced plans to collect more information and data on ultraprocessed foods with a goal to help establish a more formal definition. 'Ultra-processed foods are driving our chronic disease epidemic,' Kennedy said in a statement at the time. 'We must act boldly to eliminate the root causes of chronic illness and improve the health of our food supply. Defining ultra-processed foods with a clear, uniform standard will empower us even more to Make America Healthy Again.' CNN's Sandee LaMotte and Andrea Kane contributed to this report.