Women’s Health is Mispriced And That’s a Multi-Billion Dollar Problem
Reimbursement gaps aren’t just hurting patients. They are distorting investment incentives in healthcare. What needs to change?
What happens when the market systematically undervalues an entire sector of health care?
Welcome to the latest issue of the Femmehealth Ventures Publication. Your trusted source for insightful analysis of femtech innovations through an investor's lens, helping you identify the latest opportunities in women's health technology.
If this email was forwarded to you, you have awesome friends—click below to join. Don’t forget, you can always explore our archives to catch up on any past stories.
A new study in the Journal of Women’s Health confirms what many investors already suspect: the system financially deprioritizes women’s health, not just in venture funding but at the most fundamental level: medical reimbursements.
📉 The Numbers Are Stark
Doctors earn 30% more, on average, for procedures on men than for comparable procedures on women.
75% of surgeries for female patients have lower reimbursement rates.
This gap has barely budged in 20+ years.
This is not just a health care issue. This is a pricing failure, and it has cascading effects on private markets.
Why Private Capital Hasn’t Stepped In
The usual investor narrative goes, “Where public funding fails, private capital fills the gap.”
But here’s the problem: that’s not happening in women’s health.
❌ Reimbursement rates matter for exits. Investors aren’t just funding innovation. They need buyers, and reimbursement models heavily influence acquisition potential. If a procedure is under-reimbursed, it’s less lucrative for hospital systems and insurers, making exit pathways unattractive.
❌ Policy tailwinds don’t exist. Instead of correcting these gendered imbalances, U.S. policy shifts are moving in the wrong direction, particularly around reproductive health. Unlike AI or oncology, women’s health is not being positioned as a national investment priority.
❌ This isn’t just a VC problem. It’s systemic. The same bias that under-reimburses female procedures affects the entire capital chain, from insurance to PE buyouts. It’s not just that VCs hesitate to fund women’s health. It’s that downstream investors don’t see a clear monetization path.
Where is the Opportunity?
Traditional reimbursement-dependent health care models remain the most straightforward path for investors, but those willing to explore alternative models can still find value.
✅ Self-pay models & consumer-driven health (e.g., menopause care, hormone therapies, diagnostics outside traditional insurance). Fertility and GLP-1 weight loss drugs are proving this model works.
✅ Tech-driven cost reductions: Reimbursement gaps matter less when innovation dramatically reduces costs (e.g., AI-driven diagnostics, at-home screening, decentralized trials).
✅ Non-U.S. markets with stronger public health mandates: Europe’s approach to gender equity in health care creates more stable long-term investment conditions.
The Investor Takeaway
The undervaluation of women’s health is not just about venture capital. It’s a fundamental structural bias baked into health economics. Private capital alone won’t fix this but investors who understand the reimbursement trap can avoid funding dead ends.
Ways to Connect with FemmeHealth Ventures
Thanks for reading. If you liked what you read, consider:
signing up for Femmehealth Ventures newsletter, which is published weekly
connecting with us on Instagram and LinkedIn
sending to a friend or co-worker
Disclaimer
The content in this newsletter is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, or medical advice. Opinions expressed are those of the author and may not reflect the views of affiliated organisations. Readers should seek professional advice tailored to their individual circumstances before making decisions. Investing involves risk, including potential loss of principal. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
This was a brilliant breakdown of the systemic barriers in women’s health investment. The connection between reimbursement gaps, policy stagnation, and downstream investor hesitancy is spot on.
I also love the point about tech-driven cost reductions shifting the economics of care.
Given these challenges, how can startups and women’s health advocates actively push for change?
Beyond building great products, what strategies can help drive improvements in systemic bias—whether through policy, investor education, or new funding models?”
This is an interesting article. At the beginning, you point to a study and refer to a broken pricing failure. In my opinion, it stems from the fact that there is a gender pay gap throughout the world. We all know about it and have talked about it, but seldom is something done actively to only pay for the work/service and not who renders it. It is as if no one has touched on this topic (sarcasm!) I am attempting to do so with my article "Global Gender Pay Gap" and hope to reach out to someone who can make a change to this issue.