As I said before, I believe companies are not investing more in female health because the return on investment is likely to be minimal.
Women are already about 80% of health services consumers. They are a (growing) 30 Trillion Dollar market, accounting for over 80% of purchasing decisions and most marketing ads are targeted towards women. If there was more money to be made from women, especially female health, investors would be throwing money at the sector. Women are great buyers and businesses love repeat customers.
Another issue is that a lot of female purchases are based on trends. From fitness, wellness, mental health and now femtech,women tend to spend money on what's trending. Given the time/cost of developing a health product or service, maybe getting it through trials and recieving legal approval, the investment may not be worthwhile if there is no guaranteed long term market. Whilst capitalising on trends is possible and highly profitable, it is still very risky.
I think one of the biggest issues in women's health today is companies capitalising on women's fears and insecurities in order to sell them products and services they don't really need. The average Western woman today has upwards of 3 or 4 prescriptions. Many of these businesses are not really trying to cure anyone.
Brian, I hear you. There are companies capitalizing on consumer trends, but that’s not unique to women’s health.
The real issue is that serious medical innovations for women (from endometriosis treatments to menopause care) have been historically underfunded due to outdated assumptions about market size and profitability.
Women may be 80% of healthcare consumers, but that hasn’t translated into equitable investment. Meanwhile, investors have poured billions into categories like cardiology and orthopedics; sectors where women experience unique, often more severe health outcomes, yet remain underrepresented in research and innovation.
The reality? Women’s health is already a high-growth opportunity, but biases in capital allocation have slowed investor recognition.
The data is clear: companies tackling overlooked conditions like PCOS, menopause, and female-specific cancers are seeing rapid adoption and strong returns.
The investors moving now aren’t waiting to be convinced. They are capitalizing on a market that’s been undervalued for too long.
History has shown that overlooked markets whether fintech, climate tech, or biotech, eventually become billion-dollar industries once investors recognize their potential.
Women’s health is on the same trajectory. What do you think it will take for more investors to see the opportunity?
Honestly I couldn't tell you what it would take for investors to see an opportunity because I do not see one.
Whilst there definitely is a market for menopause care, I would be hesitant to invest. It's not a life threatening condition. Women often can and do manage without expensive or professional medical care. Most PCOS symptoms can be effectively addressed through weight loss, diet and lifestyle changes. Endometriosis could potentially be very profitable if effective non-surgical treatment could be developed but I am not aware of any promising research.
Women's biology makes them a lot less likely to develop or die from heart disease than men. They also on average develop it 10 years later in life so the focus is primarily on men. Men also require orthopedic interventions more despite their stronger physiques due to their occupations.
Investors do not often make decisions based on what is fair or equitbale but what is profitable.
Brian, your comments reflect the problem - a fundamental misunderstanding of both women’s health and how opportunity is identified in private markets.
The assumption that menopause or PCOS don’t present investable markets is not only medically outdated. It ignores the billions already flowing into solutions for these areas.
As an investor in women’s health myself, I can speak with authority. Investors in companies like Gynesonics, Gameto, and Carrot Fertility haven’t just made an impact. they’ve made strong returns.
You don’t have to believe in the opportunity for it to exist. But dismissing it on the basis of outdated narratives does a disservice to serious and knowledgeable investors who are already ahead of the curve.
This conversation’s been enlightening, not because your argument holds, but because it shows just how much work remains in unlearning bias in health investing.
Healthcare is a very profitable sector. However, it doesn't make much sense for private investors to invest in health solutions for women.
A major reason for this is (using the U.S as an example), the government already shoulders much of the burden. There are already organisations such as OASH specifically dealing with women's health issues. On average the U.S Institutes of Health spends most of its budget on women's health issues, almost 3 times that of men. The NIH research budget is 7 times that of men. This is also reflected in the number of Women’s health medical journals and published articles which have dwarfed that of men by a factor of 10 since the 1990s. Then there are the numerous Women’s Health NGOs. Women also already greatly utilise health services so there may not be much potential for growth in that area.
The picture is similar in most developed countries and developing countries are not very profitable.
Over all it would be difficult to convince private money to invest given that the potential upside seems very low.
Brian, thank you so much for your comment. I appreciate your perspective, but I’d challenge the assumption that government funding alone is enough to drive innovation in women’s health. While NIH budgets have increased, much of that funding goes toward academic research, not commercializing solutions that reach patients at scale.
Private investment has played a critical role in advancing healthcare; think about oncology, cardiovascular disease, and even digital health. Yet, women’s health remains underfunded compared to other areas, despite women making up 50% of the population and driving 80% of healthcare decisions.
The demand is there, and the market opportunity is significant: just look at the rise of femtech, biotech innovations in menopause and fertility, and advancements in autoimmune treatments affecting women disproportionately. Many of these breakthroughs are coming from venture-backed startups, not government grants.
The question isn’t whether investment is needed, but rather why women’s health has historically been overlooked. Investors who recognize this billion-dollar blind spot have the potential to generate both strong returns and meaningful impact.
Would love to hear your thoughts on how we might bridge the gap between public funding and scalable private-sector solutions.
As I said before, I believe companies are not investing more in female health because the return on investment is likely to be minimal.
Women are already about 80% of health services consumers. They are a (growing) 30 Trillion Dollar market, accounting for over 80% of purchasing decisions and most marketing ads are targeted towards women. If there was more money to be made from women, especially female health, investors would be throwing money at the sector. Women are great buyers and businesses love repeat customers.
Another issue is that a lot of female purchases are based on trends. From fitness, wellness, mental health and now femtech,women tend to spend money on what's trending. Given the time/cost of developing a health product or service, maybe getting it through trials and recieving legal approval, the investment may not be worthwhile if there is no guaranteed long term market. Whilst capitalising on trends is possible and highly profitable, it is still very risky.
I think one of the biggest issues in women's health today is companies capitalising on women's fears and insecurities in order to sell them products and services they don't really need. The average Western woman today has upwards of 3 or 4 prescriptions. Many of these businesses are not really trying to cure anyone.
Brian, I hear you. There are companies capitalizing on consumer trends, but that’s not unique to women’s health.
The real issue is that serious medical innovations for women (from endometriosis treatments to menopause care) have been historically underfunded due to outdated assumptions about market size and profitability.
Women may be 80% of healthcare consumers, but that hasn’t translated into equitable investment. Meanwhile, investors have poured billions into categories like cardiology and orthopedics; sectors where women experience unique, often more severe health outcomes, yet remain underrepresented in research and innovation.
The reality? Women’s health is already a high-growth opportunity, but biases in capital allocation have slowed investor recognition.
The data is clear: companies tackling overlooked conditions like PCOS, menopause, and female-specific cancers are seeing rapid adoption and strong returns.
The investors moving now aren’t waiting to be convinced. They are capitalizing on a market that’s been undervalued for too long.
History has shown that overlooked markets whether fintech, climate tech, or biotech, eventually become billion-dollar industries once investors recognize their potential.
Women’s health is on the same trajectory. What do you think it will take for more investors to see the opportunity?
Honestly I couldn't tell you what it would take for investors to see an opportunity because I do not see one.
Whilst there definitely is a market for menopause care, I would be hesitant to invest. It's not a life threatening condition. Women often can and do manage without expensive or professional medical care. Most PCOS symptoms can be effectively addressed through weight loss, diet and lifestyle changes. Endometriosis could potentially be very profitable if effective non-surgical treatment could be developed but I am not aware of any promising research.
Women's biology makes them a lot less likely to develop or die from heart disease than men. They also on average develop it 10 years later in life so the focus is primarily on men. Men also require orthopedic interventions more despite their stronger physiques due to their occupations.
Investors do not often make decisions based on what is fair or equitbale but what is profitable.
Brian, your comments reflect the problem - a fundamental misunderstanding of both women’s health and how opportunity is identified in private markets.
The assumption that menopause or PCOS don’t present investable markets is not only medically outdated. It ignores the billions already flowing into solutions for these areas.
As an investor in women’s health myself, I can speak with authority. Investors in companies like Gynesonics, Gameto, and Carrot Fertility haven’t just made an impact. they’ve made strong returns.
You don’t have to believe in the opportunity for it to exist. But dismissing it on the basis of outdated narratives does a disservice to serious and knowledgeable investors who are already ahead of the curve.
This conversation’s been enlightening, not because your argument holds, but because it shows just how much work remains in unlearning bias in health investing.
I’ll leave it there.
Healthcare is a very profitable sector. However, it doesn't make much sense for private investors to invest in health solutions for women.
A major reason for this is (using the U.S as an example), the government already shoulders much of the burden. There are already organisations such as OASH specifically dealing with women's health issues. On average the U.S Institutes of Health spends most of its budget on women's health issues, almost 3 times that of men. The NIH research budget is 7 times that of men. This is also reflected in the number of Women’s health medical journals and published articles which have dwarfed that of men by a factor of 10 since the 1990s. Then there are the numerous Women’s Health NGOs. Women also already greatly utilise health services so there may not be much potential for growth in that area.
The picture is similar in most developed countries and developing countries are not very profitable.
Over all it would be difficult to convince private money to invest given that the potential upside seems very low.
Brian, thank you so much for your comment. I appreciate your perspective, but I’d challenge the assumption that government funding alone is enough to drive innovation in women’s health. While NIH budgets have increased, much of that funding goes toward academic research, not commercializing solutions that reach patients at scale.
Private investment has played a critical role in advancing healthcare; think about oncology, cardiovascular disease, and even digital health. Yet, women’s health remains underfunded compared to other areas, despite women making up 50% of the population and driving 80% of healthcare decisions.
The demand is there, and the market opportunity is significant: just look at the rise of femtech, biotech innovations in menopause and fertility, and advancements in autoimmune treatments affecting women disproportionately. Many of these breakthroughs are coming from venture-backed startups, not government grants.
The question isn’t whether investment is needed, but rather why women’s health has historically been overlooked. Investors who recognize this billion-dollar blind spot have the potential to generate both strong returns and meaningful impact.
Would love to hear your thoughts on how we might bridge the gap between public funding and scalable private-sector solutions.