The dialogue surrounding women’s health has often been marginalized, illuminating a pressing economic blind spot that demands our attention. Leaders in health care and industry have recently emphasized that women’s health should not be viewed as a niche market but as a cornerstone of overall human health. This perspective was highlighted during the recent Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit, where influential figures from Deloitte, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Susan G. Komen, and the Alice L. Walton School of Medicine came together to address critical issues in this realm.
At the forefront of this discussion was Dr. Kulleni Gebreyes, a principal at Deloitte and VP in life sciences and healthcare. She firmly stated that the conversation around women’s health needs to be uplifted and reframed. According to Dr. Gebreyes, “You can’t be in health without being in women’s health.” This sentiment underscores that women constitute more than 50% of the global population, thus their health considerations should permeate every level of medical and economic discourse.
Data: The New Infrastructure
Dr. Gebreyes highlighted an essential truth: data is the new infrastructure, and trust is the key currency. In a world where women are increasingly using digital platforms and wearables—contrasting with the fact that only 20% of those platforms are tailored for them—this is an area ripe for innovation. Six out of ten wearables are used by women, a demographic that continues to be sidelined in terms of personalized care. The lack of customization serves as a glaring oversight in a health care system that professes to prioritize patient-centric solutions.
Pharmaceutical Development and Systemic Bias
Catherine Owen Adams, CEO of Acadia Pharmaceuticals, articulated another pressing issue: the systemic bias against women’s health in pharmaceutical development. Women experience mental health disorders, such as anxiety and depression, in significantly higher rates than men, yet they remain underrepresented in clinical trials. Less than 30% of clinical studies related to anxiety and depression include women. Adams stressed that addressing this disparity requires an infusion of women’s leadership perspectives, emphasizing that innovation in medical health must reflect the experiences and needs of women.
For instance, women account for 60% of Alzheimer’s patients, yet their representation in trials and studies does not mirror these statistics. By ignoring women’s experiences in drug development, the health care system fails to address the unique challenges they face.
Bridging the Gaps in Breast Cancer Research
The importance of women’s health is most apparent in overt health threats such as breast cancer. Susan G. Komen, a major nonprofit organization, is actively working to mitigate gaps in breast cancer drug research. The organization stands as the second-largest funder in this field after the U.S. government. Paula Schneider, the former president and current honorary vice chair of Susan G. Komen, highlighted a breakthrough led by MIT’s Regina Barzilay. Utilizing AI technology to improve mammogram readings, Barzilay’s work has the potential to enhance early detection rates significantly. By identifying breast cancer at earlier stages, medical professionals can bolster treatment options and improve outcomes dramatically.
However, the barriers are formidable. Currently, only about 50% of women who should be getting mammograms actually do. Bridging this gap necessitates not just innovative technology but also improved education and awareness about the importance of regular screenings.
Education and Whole-Person Care
The conversation does not stop at medical treatment or pharmaceutical innovation. It extends into education. Dr. Sharmila Makhija of the Alice L. Walton School of Medicine is preparing a new generation of health practitioners to prioritize whole-person care. In her institution, students begin clinical practice within their first three months and are educated on various factors influencing health care, such as finance and policy-making. This holistic training emphasizes not just the “what” of medical care but significantly focuses on the “why” — translating into better patient-provider communication.
Dr. Makhija quipped, “It’s not about ‘What’s the matter with you?’ but rather ‘What matters to you?’” This shift in focus is integral in building a healthcare system that places the patient’s needs at the forefront.
Reframing the Conversation
Reframing the discussion around women’s health involves an acknowledgment of shared responsibilities. Dr. Gebreyes articulates this well: moving beyond the dichotomies of “for him, by him” or “for her, by her” creates space for a collective approach that benefits all. This call for inclusivity is essential in building a healthcare framework that values all genders and their respective health needs.
The stance that “women’s health should be viewed as human health” is not merely rhetoric; it holds significant implications for economic and health policy. Health systems that recognize this truth can contribute to more effective policies, innovative research, and a healthier population overall.
Conclusion
Women’s health is undeniably an economic blind spot that requires a concerted effort to address the disparities and biases entrenched within the healthcare system. Utilizing data, promoting women’s leadership in health research, and reframing the conversation to include a holistic view of health care will foster an environment conducive to meaningful change.
Endeavors such as those spearheaded by Susan G. Komen and Acadia Pharmaceuticals, alongside educational initiatives aimed at future practitioners, will help bridge the gap in women’s health. By recognizing the importance of this issue and acting on it, we can create a more equitable health care landscape that recognizes and values the health of all individuals. After all, without women’s health being prioritized, the health of the whole system could be compromised.
