Why half the population is still underfunded
By Emmanuella Abraham
For decades, women’s health has been framed as a niche concern within a universal system. The reality is far less neutral. Across research, funding, and product development, women’s health remains structurally underinvested, creating what economists increasingly describe as a market failure.
A market failure occurs when resources are not allocated efficiently, and in this case, the imbalance is clear. Women make up roughly half of the global population, yet funding directed toward conditions that primarily or disproportionately affect them remains significantly lower than expected. Historically, clinical research has relied heavily on male subjects, leading to gaps in understanding how diseases present, progress, and respond to treatment in women. This has practical consequences. From delayed diagnoses to less effective treatments, the system is not built with full representation in mind.
The disparity is particularly visible in areas such as maternal health, reproductive health, and conditions like endometriosis or menopause-related complications. These are not marginal issues. They affect millions of women during their most economically active years. Yet investment into solutions, whether in pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, or care models, continues to lag behind other areas of healthcare.
The economic implications are substantial. When women experience poor health outcomes, the effects extend beyond the individual. Workforce participation declines, productivity is reduced, and household stability is affected. In many parts of the world, especially across sub-Saharan Africa, women are primary contributors to both formal and informal economies. Their health is directly tied to economic output, yet the systems designed to support that health are underdeveloped.
This gap is not only a failure of public health policy. It is also a missed market opportunity. Investors and companies are beginning to recognise this, leading to the rise of what is now referred to as “femtech” — technology and services focused specifically on women’s health. This includes everything from fertility tracking and maternal care platforms to menopause support and chronic condition management.
Despite this growing interest, funding levels still lag behind broader health technology sectors. Female-founded health startups, in particular, face additional barriers in accessing capital. Venture funding for women-led companies remains disproportionately low, even within categories that directly affect women. The result is a cycle where the people most equipped to build relevant solutions are often the least funded to do so.
There are, however, signs of change. Governments, global health organisations, and private investors are beginning to acknowledge the scale of the gap. Research is expanding, and more data is being collected on women-specific health outcomes. Consumer demand is also shifting. Women are becoming more informed, more vocal, and more selective about the care they receive, pushing institutions to respond.
Still, progress remains uneven. Access to quality healthcare varies significantly depending on geography, income level, and infrastructure. In many low- and middle-income countries, basic services such as maternal care and reproductive health support are still inconsistent. Digital solutions offer some promise, but they cannot fully compensate for systemic underinvestment in physical healthcare systems.
Reframing women’s health as an economic issue rather than a social one changes the conversation. It moves the focus from advocacy to allocation. It raises questions about return on investment, labour force stability, and long-term economic growth. When half the population is not adequately served, the cost is not abstract. It is measurable.
What becomes clear is that women’s health is not a specialised sector. It is a foundational one. The current gap is not simply a reflection of oversight. It is the result of systems that have not kept pace with the realities of the people they are meant to serve.
Correcting this imbalance will require more than awareness. It will require capital, policy shifts, and a redefinition of what constitutes priority within global health systems. Until then, the market will continue to underdeliver for the very population it cannot function without.
