Women’s health is underfunded. The economic cost? Billions

May 04, 2025

(Image: Marcia Dawood: early stage investor)

The numbers are in—and they’re shocking.

Alzheimer’s: Women make up two-thirds of all patients.
Only 12% of the research funding is focused on them.
Autoimmune diseases: 80% of diagnoses go to women.
Just 7% of the research follows suit.
Heart disease: Women are 50% more likely to die within a year of a heart attack.
Only 4.5% of coronary research is designed with women in mind.

That’s according to The WHAM Report (US), which exposes how chronically underfunded women’s health research is—and how much we’re leaving on the table because of it.

This isn’t just bad science. It’s bad economics.

And it’s structural: in the U.S., women weren’t even legally required to be included in clinical trials until 1993.

In the UK and EU? Still no mandate. Just guidance.

We’re not just behind. We’re still pretending women’s bodies are an edge case.

And it’s costing us—lives, innovation, and billions.

The economic case for investing in women’s health

The WHAM Report shows what happens when we get this right.

A $300m investment in women’s health research—across just three diseases—could generate over $13bn in economic returns.

For example:

Coronary artery disease → $20m investment = ~$2bn return + 12,000 productive years
Rheumatoid arthritis → $6m investment = $10.5bn return + 34,000 productive years
Alzheimer’s → $280m investment = $930m return

That’s 46,000+ additional working years—from just two diseases.

And that’s just in the US.

Let that sink in.

The resolution: a push for policy change

In response, over 25 leading health organisations have signed a WHAM-backed resolution urging Congress to double funding for women’s health research.

The goal? Correct the imbalance. Unlock innovation.
And finally build a research agenda that includes, not overlooks, women.

Meet Marcia Dawood: investing in companies that do well and do good

Marcia Dawood didn’t even know what angel investing was in 2012.
Today, she’s invested in over 50+ startups.

She’s a Venture Partner at Mindshift Capital, Vice Chair at the SEC’s Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee, and Chair Emeritus of the Angel Capital Association.

She’s also back on The Purse Podcast—with a clear message:

“I see female founders building real solutions for postpartum, menopause, and other women’s health issues—and they’re pitching to a room full of men who don’t know if this is a real problem...They don’t understand how our ‘mechanics’ work. They’ve never lived it.”

Now imagine pitching that to a room of women. Women who have lived it—or know someone who has.

This is why we need more women investing—especially at the early stage.
Because who makes the decisions, shapes what gets built.

Impact investing: it’s not what you think

“I have a love-hate relationship with the word impact,” says Marcia. “People hear it and assume it means no return. That’s just not true.”

Impact investing means backing companies that aim for a measurable positive effect on society or the planet—and a financial return. It’s not philanthropy. It’s investing with your values. We can invest in the changes we want to see.

“These companies are trying to make change for people and the planet. And they can generate a good return while doing it.”

Personal capital. Real stakes

Marcia invested in a startup tackling Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and ALS:

“My mom died from ALS in 2018. When I saw this company was tackling all three—diseases that are connected—I knew I had to be part of it.”

Marcia felt strongly that if we start making advances, we could help all three diseases, and possibly find a cure. And if her investment helped move things even one step forward, she’d know she contributed to something truly important.

Marcia goes on to say:

“ Any type of a private investment in the angel (or VC) space is risky.
You have to think": hey, I could lose all my money, and if that's the case, then I should not be investing with my kids' college fund or my retirement savings or anything like that…
You're using money that's just a small amount in the bucket for investible assets that you're putting aside - just to invest in this asset class.”

Due diligence still matters

Impact doesn’t mean lowering the bar. And it doesn’t mean skipping the evaluation of the startup.

You’re still assessing the founder, the team, the solution, the business model, and their ability to make money.

Impact investing isn’t a softer form of investing. It’s a more considered one. It’s how women can invest with their values—without compromising performance.

It’s about widening the aperture.

The bottom line

The return on women’s health research is real—and we’re still not funding it properly. That’s a policy problem. But it doesn’t stop there.

Once the research exists, we need founders to turn it into products, and funding to get those products off the ground.

That’s where angel and VC money comes in. And too often, women-led health startups are pitching to rooms full of people who’ve never lived the problems they’re solving.

Funding research and funding startups are two sides of the same coin. If we want better outcomes for women, we need more women writing the cheques—at every stage.

We’d love to hear from you. Get in touch with Jana via the The Purse website or tweet @jointhepurse and janicka. We do no provide investment advice. Please do your own research or speak to a financial adviser. Image of Marcia Dawood, co-generated with AI, for The Purse Ltd.

The Purse