Funding Women’s Health: Why Is Drug Development for Women Still Overlooked?

Everywhere I turn, there are announcements of "historic investments" in women’s health. This progress is not just a step in the right direction—it is the result of tireless advocacy by women who have fought to bring attention to the unmet needs in women’s healthcare. Their dedication has led to groundbreaking funding initiatives that are shaping the future of menopause care and women’s health more broadly. To these trailblazers, we say thank you.

We see new programs, screening services, and digital health solutions designed to "empower" women. FemTech—a rapidly growing sector—attracts billions in funding, but the majority of these investments go into apps and data repositories rather than research into new treatments. While tracking symptoms in an app may provide insights, does it actually change health outcomes? If women log "anxious, foggy, and fatigued" into multiple apps, do they receive real solutions, or just more data?

Despite increased awareness of sex-based differences in medicine, drug development remains largely focused on male physiology. Most medications on the market were designed with male clinical data, often overlooking how women metabolize, respond to, or experience side effects differently. Is this an unintentional gap, or is drug research simply not prioritizing women’s unique needs?

Funding announcements highlight breast cancer screening, endometriosis awareness, access to contraceptives, and even menopause and perimenopause initiatives. These are important strides, but where is the investment in actual innovation? Where is the funding for research into non-hormonal treatments for menopause? Are we doing enough to develop groundbreaking drugs specifically designed for female physiology?

FemTech has been heralded as the next frontier in women’s health, but is it addressing the root of the issue? Cycle-tracking apps, hormone monitoring wearables, and AI-driven health insights provide valuable information, but do they offer real treatment options? Knowing more about symptoms doesn’t necessarily mean women have access to effective solutions.

What if the billions flowing into FemTech were directed toward developing new therapies for conditions that disproportionately affect women? What if there were greater investments in botanical drug research for menopause or treatments that support cognitive function without dependency risks? The technology exists, so why isn’t the funding following?

If we want real progress in women’s healthcare, how can we shift the focus from symptom-tracking to solutions? Funding research into non-hormonal, plant-based therapeutics that address menopause, perimenopause, cognitive health, and other under-researched areas could make a profound difference. Ensuring that drug trials include women at every stage of development, rather than as an afterthought, could lead to better treatments. Shouldn’t investments in women’s health extend beyond apps and awareness campaigns and into real, science-backed treatments?

Women don’t need more ways to log their symptoms; they need options that change their health outcomes.

Is it time for funding priorities to reflect that?

• How can we advocate for policy changes that prioritize funding for women-specific drug research?

• Which companies and organizations are investing in real innovation for women’s health, and how can we support them?

• Are funding announcements transparent about where the money is actually going?

• What steps can be taken to push for investment in botanical and other therapies that offer safer, effective alternatives?

Women’s health deserves more than band-aid solutions. How can we drive real change?