AB360 directs the Department of Health Care Access and Information (DHCAI) to work with the Medical Board of California, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, and state higher‑education entities to assess physician education, training, and practice patterns related to menopause. The bill requires DHCAI to deliver a findings-and-recommendations report to the Legislature identifying gaps and proposing state policy by January 1, 2027.
Separately, AB360 amends the Business and Professions Code to require the Medical and Osteopathic boards to develop and administer anonymous menopause training surveys as part of the physician license renewal process—an initial survey plus subsequent surveys capturing training received since the initial submission—and explicitly prevents boards from denying license renewal solely for failure to complete the survey. The bill leaves survey format and implementation details to the boards and allows them to adopt implementing regulations.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB360 mandates a DHCAI-led assessment of physician menopause education and practice patterns and requires the Medical and Osteopathic boards to add anonymous training surveys to the license-renewal process (initial and follow-up). The bill sets a statutory report deadline and permits boards to adopt regulations for survey administration.
Who It Affects
All licensed physicians and surgeons (MDs and DOs) subject to California renewal processes, the Medical and Osteopathic Boards, DHCAI, medical schools and graduate programs, continuing medical education providers, and patients who experience menopause—especially those in communities with identified disparities.
Why It Matters
This creates a statutory mechanism to produce statewide, board‑level data on clinical training and practice patterns around menopause, which may drive curriculum changes, CME requirements, and targeted public‑health interventions. Because the surveys are anonymous and cannot block renewals, the bill prioritizes data collection while limiting immediate disciplinary leverage.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB360 creates two linked obligations. First, it directs the Department of Health Care Access and Information to partner with the Medical Board of California, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, and state higher‑education entities to measure both how physicians are trained to diagnose and manage menopause and how they currently practice.
The measurement explicitly includes breakdowns by specialty, region, sex, race or ethnicity, practice setting, and clinician experience so the state can see where care differs across contexts.
Second, the bill requires the Medical and Osteopathic boards to incorporate anonymous menopause training surveys into their license‑renewal workflows. Boards must issue an initial survey about past training and then subsequent surveys that capture any additional menopause-related training since the initial response.
The statute gives boards discretion over question format and frequency, allows them to adopt regulations, and forbids denying renewal solely because a clinician failed to complete a survey.Together the two pieces are designed to produce both micro data (board‑administered surveys tied to renewal cycles) and a macro analysis (a DHCAI report to the Legislature due January 1, 2027). The report must identify gaps in education and practice and recommend state policy options to improve menopause‑related education, training, and health outcomes.
The bill stops short of mandating curricular changes, licensure consequences, or new clinical standards; it creates information and a path for future policy based on that information.
The Five Things You Need to Know
DHCAI must prepare a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2027, identifying education gaps and recommending state policy on menopause care.
DHCAI will assess physician training and trends in practice patterns by specialty, region, sex, race or ethnicity, practice setting, and clinician experience.
The Medical and Osteopathic boards must add an initial anonymous menopause training survey to the license‑renewal process and follow up with subsequent surveys capturing new training.
The boards may set survey format and adopt regulations, but they may not deny license renewal solely for failing to complete the survey.
The statute requires anonymous administration of the surveys, aiming to protect respondent identity while collecting workforce training data.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Scope of the DHCAI assessment
This subsection directs DHCAI to collaborate with the two physician boards and higher‑education entities to assess physician education and training on menopause diagnosis and management and to measure practice‑pattern trends. The section specifies the dimensions for analysis—specialty, geography, clinician sex, race/ethnicity, practice setting, and experience—making DHCAI’s work explicitly comparative and stratified rather than a single statewide aggregate.
Legislative report requirement and deliverables
DHCAI must produce a written report to the Legislature by January 1, 2027, that (A) identifies gaps in medical education and menopause management among physicians and (B) recommends state policy to improve training and health outcomes. The report must comply with the state’s usual reporting rules (Gov. Code §9795), which governs formatting and submission, but the substance is a diagnostics-and-policy brief to inform legislative and administrative options.
License‑renewal surveys: initial and subsequent
The statute requires boards to develop an initial survey covering a physician’s prior menopause‑related training and subsequent surveys that capture training obtained after the initial survey. The statutory purpose is explicit: assess the extent of clinician training on menopause, symptoms, and management options. Because the surveys are tied to renewal cycles, they create a repeated‑measures dataset over time if the boards implement them consistently.
Administration, anonymity, and non‑denial rule
Boards determine survey format and may promulgate regulations to administer the surveys; importantly the law mandates anonymous surveys and bars denying renewal solely on failure to complete the survey. That combination aims to increase participation and allay due‑process concerns, but it also limits the boards’ enforcement leverage—noncompliance cannot be used as a licensure sanction under this provision.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Patients experiencing menopause: Better data on clinician training and practice patterns can identify care gaps and inform targeted improvements in diagnosis and management, particularly for populations with worse outcomes.
- Medical schools and residency programs: Actionable state data can justify curriculum updates and prioritize menopause content where evidence shows deficiencies or geographic disparities.
- Public health planners and researchers: Stratified practice‑pattern data creates a foundation for population‑level interventions, grant applications, and targeted continuing education programs.
- Continuing medical education providers: The report and survey findings will create demand signals for CME content tailored to demonstrated deficits in menopause care.
Who Bears the Cost
- Medical Board of California and Osteopathic Medical Board: The boards must design, administer, and possibly regulate the surveys—work that requires staff time, IT changes to renewal platforms, and potential analytic support.
- Department of Health Care Access and Information: DHCAI must coordinate partners, perform stratified analyses, and produce a policy report within a statutory deadline—tasks that require staffing and technical resources.
- Licensed physicians and surgeons: Clinicians will spend time completing initial and follow‑up surveys during renewals; low respondent incentives may push some to treat the surveys as administrative burden.
- Medical schools and CME providers (indirect cost): If the report recommends curricular changes, programs may need to redesign courses or add training modules, incurring development and delivery costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between collecting protective, anonymous workforce data to encourage honest clinician participation and the need for linked, representative data that can support precise, equity‑focused policy changes; anonymity safeguards participation but limits the analytic power needed to identify and fix training gaps, while stronger linkage or enforcement would improve data quality at the cost of clinician privacy and possible pushback.
AB360 focuses on data collection rather than immediate regulatory or curricular mandates. That design reduces legal exposure and respects clinician autonomy, but it raises implementation questions.
The bill requires anonymous surveys stratified by demographic and practice variables while also expecting DHCAI to produce granular, stratified practice‑pattern analyses; anonymity and detailed stratification create a tension between protecting respondent identity and generating linkable, representative datasets. If sample sizes are small in certain strata, DHCAI may be unable to report meaningful comparisons without risking reidentification or producing statistically unreliable results.
The statute also assumes boards and DHCAI will have the operational capacity to coordinate surveys, integrate them into digital renewal systems, and analyze results on a deadline—none of which the bill funds. Without dedicated resources or guidance on survey design and sample weighting, findings could be biased by low response rates or selective participation.
Finally, the bill stops short of mandating curriculum changes or licensure consequences; it produces recommendations that policymakers and institutions must choose to act upon, which means the law’s ultimate impact depends on follow‑through and resource allocation rather than on its statutory text alone.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.