Valerie Foushee (D-NC)
To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to require public institutions of higher education that receive grants under the Medical Student Education program to include training for medical students relating to menopause in the curriculums of such institutions, and for other purposes.
A Democratic bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
H.R. 9273 requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to set a condition for public institutions of higher education receiving grants under the Medical Student Education program. These institutions must include menopause training for medical students in their curriculums. The goal is to better prepare physicians across various specialties.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +8
Would women be better off under this?
Directly improves the quality of medical care and physician knowledge regarding a critical phase of women's health.
- Scored +4
Would people in middle age be better off under this?
Positive impact for middle-aged women who are the primary demographic affected by menopause.
- Scored +3
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
Better training for physicians on menopause improves the quality and availability of specialized care for patients.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Imposes federal mandates on state-run public institutions of higher education.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Better prepared physicians: By requiring training relating to menopause in medical curriculums, the bill aims to better prepare physicians across specialties (Section 1).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for people are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would women be better off under this? — Directly improves the quality of medical care and physician knowledge regarding a critical phase of women's health. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Positive impact for middle-aged women who are the primary demographic affected by menopause. Would retired people be better off under this? — Improves healthcare outcomes for retirees experiencing menopausal symptoms. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Positive impact for seniors transitioning through or managing post-menopausal health. Would students be better off under this? — Medical students receive more comprehensive training, better preparing them for professional practice.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Better training for physicians on menopause improves the quality and availability of specialized care for patients.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — Addresses a specific health need primarily affecting women, improving gender-specific healthcare education.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal oversight by adding conditions to grants for public higher education institutions. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Imposes federal mandates on state-run public institutions of higher education.
- 9/2/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 6/11/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House
Yvette ClarkeDemocrat · New York
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia