Connect with us

Insight

Women’s health is not niche: It’s the future of healthcare

Published

on

By Melissa Wallace, CEO & Founding Partner of Fierce Foundry

Just a few years ago, so many conversations around women’s health in the U.S. felt like they were still just making the case for why investment mattered. Panels, white papers, TED-style talks pointed to under-funding, data gaps, structural bias. But something has shifted. Across healthcare and investment communities, the tone now is more about when, not if,  and increasingly how.

A compelling indicator of this shift arrived in early August, when the Gates Foundation announced a $2.5 billion commitment to advance women’s health research and development through 2030, fixing its spotlight on long-neglected areas such as menopause, heavy menstrual bleeding and endometriosis. (Reuters) Paired with this, industry commentary emphasises that med-tech devices specifically for women are gaining investor interest at a notable pace. (Medical Device Network)

This sort of capital commitment and investor signal was rare even just a couple of years ago, it underscores a rising belief that women’s health is not just a moral imperative, but a strong market opportunity with measurable returns.

The momentum is palpable here in the U.S.: deficits in research and care persist (for example, women’s health startups captured a record ~$2.6 billion in venture funding in 2024, up from ~$1.7 billion in 2023). (BioPharmadive) And while the sector remains under‐capitalized overall (some reports suggest only ~2% of healthcare investment goes to women’s‐health solutions) (Morgan Lewis) the trajectory is unmistakable.

What’s causing the flip?

  1. From niche to mainstream: The definition of “women’s health” is expanding in the U.S. It’s no longer just fertility or gynecology, it now encompasses perimenopause, longevity, autoimmune conditions, cardiovascular issues in women. “We’re finally seeing women’s health shift from the under-invested side-line to an innovation category that VCs believe can outperform,” said Raysa Bousleiman, Senior VP for Investor Coverage at Silicon Valley Bank.
  2. Data gaps turning into data opportunity: For decades, women’s biology, hormonal cycles, mid-life transitions were under-researched. That created both risk and opportunity. Today, tools such as AI, advanced imaging and genomics are closing those gaps. One insightful analysis argued that AI could fundamentally reshape women’s health by tackling “data deserts, bias, and gaps.” (World Economic Forum) Investors increasingly see that the business case is real, not just the moral one. The report “The WHAM Report” frames women’s health investment as “a pathway to societal impact, economic resilience and sustainable growth.”(Wham Now)
  3. Exit and scale signals: The proof of performance is emerging. In the U.S., scale players are projecting women’s health lines hitting milestone revenues. In Europe, a company raised hundreds of millions targeting ovarian cancer and perimenopause. These “top-of-the-chain” moves may feel distant to early-stage founders, but they shift perception fundamentally: women’s health is not a boutique play, it’s investable, scalable, strategic.
  4. Shift in investor mindset: No longer is women’s health simply a “good cause”; it’s a growth category. Fund managers are citing track records, asking to raise dedicated funds, deploying dollars not just to be socially responsible but to achieve outsized returns. That shift changes how founders engage, what boards expect, what exits look like.

Still, we must be candid: founders in this space continue to face headwinds. For example, one founder, Valentina Milanova of Daye, shared the frustrating anecdote: “I’ve had investors ask me why our tampons have string on them.” That kind of query signals bias, not just about product design, but about the perceived seriousness of the category. Her pragmatic advice to early-stage founders: consider grant funding, especially in Europe, as founder-friendly capital that can help bridge to private investment.

What does this all mean for U.S. organizations and the broader ecosystem?

For healthcare organizations: The signals are clear. Women’s health is moving from underserved nic­he to strategic priority. In the U.S., institutions and health systems that double-down here now may gain first-mover advantage, whether by building multidisciplinary women’s health centres, partnering with innovative startups, or harnessing data insights tailored for women. The business case is sharper than ever: women make up 51 % of the population, drive ~80 % of healthcare decisions, and still face care gaps. (Wham Now)

For investors and founders: This is a moment. The conversation is no longer simply “why invest in women’s health” but “how to invest in women’s health at scale”. Founders should be ready to show performance, not just potential. Investors should demand sex-disaggregated data, metrics beyond fertility, and a broader view of women’s life-course care. The heavy lifting remains but it’s now being valued.

For the market at large: The under-served areas are many perimenopause, mid-life wellness, autoimmune conditions in women, hair loss, anorectal care, longevity for women, all of which were once sidelined. That white space, combined with rising capital and broader recognition, fuels a powerful market dynamic.

The story of women’s health is being rewritten. Where once the conversation focused on why, today it increasingly focuses on how. The category is shifting toward performance, scale, credibility. For healthcare organizations willing to commit whether via partnerships, internal innovation or capital deployment, this is not just a mission. It’s a strategic opportunity. And the message is resonating: women’s health is not an afterthought anymore. It’s one of the fastest-growing, most under-leveraged frontiers in healthcare.

Insight

Working from home linked to higher fertility, research finds

Published

on

Working from home is linked to 0.32 more children per woman when both partners do it at least once a week, research across 38 countries suggests.

The study found that among working adults aged 20 to 45, estimated lifetime fertility, meaning children already born or fathered plus plans for future children, rises when one or both partners work remotely.

In the US, the increase was even higher at 0.45 children per woman.

On average, women whose partners did not work from home had 2.26 children.

When the woman worked from home at least one day a week, this rose to 2.48. When both partners did so, it increased to 2.58.

If the man worked from home at least one day a week, the increase was more limited at 2.36 children.

The research, by Steven J. Davis and colleagues and published as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, points to three possible explanations.

Remote working may make it easier to balance childcare with paid work, leading some couples to have more children.

Families with children may also be more likely to look for remote roles. Or the growing availability of those roles may lift fertility by opening up more parent-friendly jobs.

“All three stories align with the idea that WFH jobs make it easier for parents to combine child rearing and employment,” the report suggests.

The pattern held both after the pandemic, between 2023 and 2025, and before it, between 2017 and 2019.

The implications for national fertility rates vary mainly because working-from-home rates differ widely between countries.

Among workers aged 20 to 45, the share working from home at least one day a week ranges from 21 per cent in Japan to 60 per cent in Vietnam. The UK ranks third globally and leads Europe at 54 per cent.

The report estimates that, if “interpreted causally”, remote working accounts for 8.1 per cent of US fertility, equal to about 291,000 births a year as of 2024.

The researchers note that while this may sound modest, it is larger than the effect of government spending on early childhood care and education in the US.

“Bringing WFH rates to the levels that currently prevail in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada has the potential to materially boost fertility in many other countries,” the report suggests.

However, the research cautions against broad policy approaches, saying the desire for remote work varies widely between individuals, and that it is not practical in every job or organisation.

“Thus, policy interventions that push for a one-size-fits-all approach to working arrangements are likely to yield unhappier workers and lower productivity,” it warns.

A UK Parliament report has also found that remote and hybrid work can boost employment, with parents, carers and people with disabilities likely to benefit most from more flexible working options.

Continue Reading

Insight

Radiotherapy may cut lymphoedema risk

Published

on

Radiotherapy to the armpit instead of surgery may cut lymphoedema risk in some breast cancer patients, early trial results suggest.

Lymphoedema is swelling of the arm or armpit that can happen after surgery to remove lymph nodes.

New findings suggest axillary radiotherapy may be as effective at killing any remaining cancer cells while being less likely to trigger this complication.

The results come from the pilot phase of a phase III randomised international clinical trial looking at whether axillary radiotherapy has a lower risk of lymphoedema than axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients who have had chemotherapy or hormone therapy before surgery, and whose cancer has spread to only one or two lymph nodes.

The trial will also assess overall survival and disease-free survival.

The researchers stressed that these are preliminary results from two years of follow-up in the pilot study, and that clinicians should wait for results from the ongoing phase III trial before considering changes to clinical practice.

Amparo Garcia-Tejedor, from the Functional Breast Unit at Bellvitge University Hospital in Spain and the Institut Català d’Oncologia, is leading the trial.

She said studies had already shown that axillary radiotherapy was a good alternative to axillary lymph node dissection in patients whose first line of treatment was surgery.

She said: “In situations where patients have received chemotherapy or hormone therapy before surgery, it is expected that results could be similar. However, robust prospective data are not yet fully established or published.

“Many patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy experience a significant reduction in axillary disease burden and ultimately present with only one or two lymph nodes that are positive for cancer metastases, which often correspond to the sentinel lymph node, while the remaining axillary nodes are negative.

“This observation strongly suggested that further axillary surgery might be unnecessary in a substantial proportion of patients and that a strategy of de-escalation should be explored.”

From June 2021 to April 2023, the ADARNAT trial recruited 272 breast cancer patients whose disease might have spread to one or more lymph nodes.

The patients had received neoadjuvant therapy and, at the time of surgery, had metastatic cancer in one or two sentinel lymph nodes, the lymph nodes where cancer typically spreads first.

Patients were randomised to receive either axillary radiotherapy or axillary lymph node dissection, and patients in both groups also received radiotherapy to areas of the breast and chest. Results were available for 46 patients in the radiotherapy group and 56 in the surgery group, with a median follow-up of two years.

No cancer recurred in the axillary area in the radiotherapy group, compared with one recurrence in the surgery group, or 1.8 per cent.

Cancer spread to other parts of the body in 4.4 per cent of radiotherapy patients and 5.5 per cent of surgery patients, and there were two deaths in the surgery group, or 4.3 per cent.

Lymphoedema was more common after surgery, at 26.7 per cent, than after radiotherapy, at 18.9 per cent, although the researchers said this difference was not statistically significant. Disease-free and overall survival rates were similar after two years.

Garcia-Tejedor said: “These results indicate that ART instead of ALND is feasible and has good cancer outcomes at two years.

“While some specialists have already begun to substitute axillary lymph node dissection with axillary radiotherapy without waiting for definitive results, the only way to determine with certainty whether this strategy is truly safe and effective is through participation in a well-designed clinical trial such as the one we are now conducting.

“This is particularly important given that the study population includes patients with residual axillary disease and, therefore, a potentially worse prognosis.

“In this context, treatment decisions should not be made without robust evidence.

“Our trial is designed to provide the necessary data to definitively answer this question and to ensure that any future change in standard practice is safe in terms of cancer outcomes and is also beneficial for patients.”

Maria Laplana-Torres, a radiation oncologist at the Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, presented pilot-phase results showing that although axillary radiotherapy was linked to more skin damage from radiation, this was usually temporary and easily treated.

Acute skin damage of grade 2 or above occurred in 27.8 per cent of radiotherapy patients compared with 13.3 per cent after surgery.

It mainly involved skin redness, pigment changes or, in some cases, skin peeling. There were no significant differences in later skin damage between the two groups.

She said: “Some patients experienced mild, temporary difficulty raising the arm above the shoulder or lifting it to the side. These limitations were usually short-lived and did not affect everyday activities.

“We found that treating the axilla with radiotherapy instead of extensive surgery can avoid a more aggressive operation without compromising treatment safety in patients with sentinel lymph node involvement.

“One and two years after treatment, there were no meaningful differences in arm mobility or quality of life between the two groups, although there was a more favourable trend in the ART patients.

“These results show that axillary radiotherapy may be a safe and less invasive option for some women treated with chemotherapy or hormone therapy before surgery.’

“This kind of research is essential to continue improving patient outcomes and to define safer, equally effective therapeutic approaches.”

More than 500 patients have now joined the main phase III trial. The researchers estimate that about three more years will be needed to complete recruitment, followed by five years of follow-up to fully assess cancer outcomes.

Continue Reading

Insight

Report makes the case for an incentive change in health data

Published

on

In a new report, “The Case for Incentive Change in Healthcare Data,” WHIS Lead Producer Poppy Howard-Wall explores why healthcare’s biggest data challenge may not be technical but economic.

Integrating learnings from Poppy’s conversations with senior leaders at the ViVE Summit, the report highlights how fragmented data and misaligned incentives continue to limit the industry’s ability to deliver truly longitudinal care.

Howard-Wall writes: “For the women’s health industry, where many conditions have historically been under-researched and longitudinal datasets remain incomplete, the consequences of fragmented data infrastructure are even more pronounced.

“Artificial intelligence promises to accelerate discovery, improve diagnosis and enable more proactive care. But its potential is inseparable from the data ecosystems that support it.

“In the absence of strong economic incentives for deeper integration, the question becomes how the industry is beginning to navigate this constraint and what signals are emerging about the future of healthcare data and AI in women’s health.”

Read the report here.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025 Aspect Health Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.