Closing the Women’s Health Gap Naturally

“Addressing the women’s health gap could improve the quality of life for women, as well as creating positive ripples in society, such as improving future generations’ health and boosting healthy aging.”

This was a key takeaway from a report released earlier this year by the McKinsey Health Institute and World Economic Forum, which focused on the women’s health gap—health conditions that affect women uniquely, differently or disproportionately, and lead to women spending up to 25% more time in poor health than men. Addressing the gap could boost the global economy by US$1 trillion annually, generating the equivalent impact of 137 million women accessing full time positions by 2040.

Notably, the report expands the scope of ‘women’s health’ beyond the traditional sexual and reproductive health focus to look at not only those areas, but also health conditions with a higher disease burden in women or higher prevalence (i.e., autoimmune conditions, depression, colon cancer, etc.). There could be fascinating opportunities in developing new diagnostic tools and personalized approaches to assessing wellness, allowing women to take greater control of their own health. As they seek new ways to support their health, whether with nutritional or pharma solutions, they need support to track and manage the impact.

Developing those solutions also means conducting research in more gender balanced populations, ensuring that the cohort is representative of the target market. At SupplySide West 2022, Susan Mitmesser, PhD, VP of science & technology at Pharmavite, advocated strongly for conducting research in gender balanced populations, noting that the company supports research proposals only when they do meet that baseline requirement. The McKinsey overview notes that representative clinical trials may be more expensive, but likely would yield more effective outcomes; ‘The risk/reward equation for investors becomes more balanced if payers (governments, insurers, and patients) and regulators insist on evidence for cohort-specific impact.’

To that point, consider findings from Deloitte, which noted out-of-pocket health care costs for employed women are estimated to be US$15 billion higher per year than men’s costs, even as the pay gap persists, with women only earning 82 cents per dollar earned by men. The health and wellness industry has a role to play, with women seeking natural remedies and solutions to get and stay well—avoiding those additional health care costs.

Further, a blog by OliverWyman outlined several opportunities for the pharma industry to address the situation—several of which certainly apply to the nutraceutical space. In particular, how to increase women’s representation in research, whether through R&D focus on select conditions, improving gender balance in clinical trials, and extending access to treatment. One key consideration—ensuring ‘women’s health’ teams don’t work in silos, but embedding the topic across the R&D infrastructure and engaging with cross-functional teams.

And a final bonus thought. The New York Times book review just showcased ‘All in Her Head,’ a book by Dr Elizabeth Comen. I’ve put in my order to learn more about how the medical establishment has for centuries undermined and dismissed women’s health complaints—and how that persists today, further affecting the gender health gap.

What is your organization doing to address the women’s health gap, and how are you ensuring gender diversity and equality across your organization to stimulate innovative thinking? If you're committed to the topic, consider joining Women In Nutraceuticals as we focus on the topic of gender equity in the nutraceutical industry.