The Business Case Pharmacists Already Understand
Pharmacy doesn't usually get invited into conversations about executive retention, and as a profession, pharmacy has been dominated by women since the 1980s. But the data underlying this issue is, at its core, a medication-access and adherence problem—which is squarely our lane.
A 2023 Mayo Clinic Proceedings study of 4440 employed women aged 45 to 60, using the Menopause Rating Scale, found that menopause symptom burden was significantly associated with adverse work outcomes, including missed workdays and reduced on-the-job functioning, with higher symptom severity predicting higher odds of a negative outcome.1 Approximately 13% of participants reported at least 1 adverse work outcome, and the researchers estimated the associated cost of lost productivity at $1.8 billion annually among US women in this age bracket.1
The more striking number came 2 years later. A 2025 Mayo Clinic follow-up found that despite effective, guideline-supported treatments being available, roughly 87% of symptomatic women had not sought care—most citing being too busy or unaware that effective options existed.2
Read those 2 findings together, and the clinical picture is unambiguous: this isn't a treatment-efficacy gap. It's an access and awareness gap. And access and awareness are exactly the 2 things community and ambulatory-care pharmacists are positioned to close.
What We're Actually Treating, and What the Evidence Supports
The Menopause Society's 2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement remains the operative clinical reference, and it's worth restating plainly for colleagues who haven't revisited it since the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) era shaped their training: hormone therapy (HT) remains the most effective treatment available for vasomotor symptoms and genitourinary syndrome of menopause, and it has demonstrated benefit for prevention of bone loss and fracture.3
The Society's "window of opportunity" framework is the piece most worth carrying into every consult: for healthy, symptomatic women younger than 60 or within 10 years of menopause onset, with no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio favors treatment.3 Risk stratification by age and time since menopause onset—not a blanket age cutoff, and not a reflexive "ask your gynecologist"—is the recommended approach.3 The statement is also explicit that formulation, dose, and route should be individualized and periodically reassessed, and that transdermal routes and lower doses may reduce venous thromboembolism and stroke risk relative to oral estrogen.3 None of this requires subspecialty training to counsel on. It requires the same medication-optimization skill set pharmacists already apply to anticoagulation, insulin titration, or antihypertensive selection.
Where the Pipeline Actually Breaks
If the treatment is well-characterized and the guidance is individualized rather than restrictive, the natural question is why so few symptomatic women receive it. Two structural gaps stand out from a pharmacy-practice lens:
- A generational training gap in primary care. Many primary care prescribers were trained during or shortly after the WHI-era caution that reshaped HT teaching, and menopause management still receives limited dedicated curricular time in most medical training. The result, anecdotally and in workforce surveys, is a default reflex toward specialist referral even for straightforward, low-risk candidates—a referral that, given current wait times for menopause-specialized care in much of the country, frequently functions as a dead end rather than a next step.
- Underused pharmacist prescriptive authority. Pharmacist prescriptive authority in the US exists on a continuum, from collaborative practice agreements (CPAs) delegated by a supervising physician to full independent statewide protocol authority granted directly by state law.4 States have already used this framework to expand direct pharmacist access to hormonal contraceptives, naloxone, tobacco-cessation therapy, and pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis—precedent that maps directly onto menopausal HT for appropriately screened, low-risk patients.4,5 California's furnishing-authority model for hormonal contraceptives is a useful template: standardized screening protocol, defined exclusion criteria, and direct pharmacist authority to initiate therapy without a preceding physician visit.5 Extending an equivalent protocol to systemic HT for otherwise healthy women under 60 within the guideline's low-risk window is a natural next step, not a novel one.
Where Pharmacists Add Value Today, Within Current Scope
Even absent expanded prescriptive authority in a given state, there is substantial room to close this gap under existing scope of practice:
- Screening and triage at the counter: Community pharmacists are often the first clinician a symptomatic patient mentions hot flashes, sleep disruption, or "brain fog" to—frequently before it comes up with a physician at all. A structured screening conversation (symptom pattern, time since last menstrual period, personal/family history of breast cancer, venous thromboembolism, or cardiovascular disease) can identify good HT candidates and flag which patients genuinely need specialist referral versus which ones a primary care provider could manage today.
- Formulation and route counseling: Oral versus transdermal estrogen, cyclic versus continuous progestogen, and product-specific dosing nuances are exactly the kind of decision support prescribers often lack time to walk through, and exactly what pharmacists are trained to do well.
- CPA-based management: In states permitting CPAs, pharmacists can manage titration, adverse effect triage, and adherence monitoring for patients already started on HT, reducing follow-up burden on referring physicians and shortening the loop between symptom and relief.
- Advocacy for statewide protocol expansion: State pharmacy associations already have a working model (contraceptive furnishing authority) and a receptive precedent in state legislatures. Menopausal HT is a logical, evidence-supported candidate for the next protocol expansion.
About the Author
Erin Albert, MBA, PharmD, JD, is chief of pharmacy relations, network, and privacy at Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, PBC, where she oversees business development, regulatory strategy, clinical initiatives, and data privacy for the company’s Affiliate Pharmacy Network.
Disclosure/scope note: Prescriptive authority for hormone therapy varies by state and practice setting; readers should confirm current statewide protocols, CPA terms, and board of pharmacy guidance before initiating any expanded clinical service. This article was written using AI in part by the author.
The Workforce Argument, Stated Plainly
None of this is being offered as a leadership intervention. HT is not a career strategy, and it is not appropriate for every patient. But the workplace data are now specific enough to state clearly: symptom burden is measurably associated with adverse work outcomes, care-seeking rates are low despite effective options existing, and access—not efficacy—is the documented bottleneck.1,2 Data from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s 2023 survey of more than 2000 working women aged 40 to 60 found comparable effects on career trajectory, with 27% reporting a negative impact on career progression and 6% having left a job specifically over symptoms (the more widely circulated "1 in 10 women left work due to menopause" figure comes from a 2022 Fawcett Society/Channel 4 survey of an already symptomatic, self-selected sample, and researchers have cautioned against generalizing it to the broader population).6-8
The longitudinal research connecting treatment access directly to leadership retention and promotion outcomes doesn't yet exist; that's a legitimate and open research question, not a settled one. What already exists is enough to justify pharmacy taking this on as a scope-of-practice and access issue independent of that unanswered question. Every additional access point—a pharmacist trained to screen, counsel, and, where authorized, initiate or manage therapy—is a smaller referral bottleneck and a shorter distance between a patient's symptom and an informed decision about her own care.
REFERENCES
Faubion SS, Enders F, Hedges MS, et al. Impact of menopause symptoms on women in the workplace. Mayo Clin Proc. 2023;98(6):833-845. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.02.025
The 2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society Advisory Panel. The 2022 hormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause. 2022;29(7):767-794. doi:10.1097/GME.00000000002028
Pharmacist prescribing: statewide protocols and more. National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations. November 9, 2018. Accessed August 5, 2026. https://naspa.us/resource/swp/
