Why VCs Are Still Struggling to Invest in Women’s Health

I’ve met many venture capitalists who tell me they're incredibly excited about women's health. They echo what I believe to be true: it's a massive market, the category is exploding, and the need is clear. But then, almost inevitably, comes the next line:

"But we haven’t made any investments there yet."

This isn’t a call-out. It’s a pattern—and it speaks to a broader truth:

VCs are not inherently afraid of risk (in fact, that’s kind of the whole job); but they’re afraid of risk without reference points.

As Leslie Shrock puts in her essay, “ Why is it still so hard to succeed in women’s health?”, there are 5 common hurdles:

1. A lack of total capital going to female entrepreneurs

2. The “TAM problem”, or persistent skepticism about market size

3. Unclear or inconsistent reimbursement rates

4. The macro investment climate

5. The “yuck factor”, AKA the stubborn stigma surrounding these topics

These challenges are real. But many of them stem from something deeper: women’s health is still, for many, a grey box. Not because the opportunity isn't real, but because our entire healthcare system—and much of our science—wasn't built to understand female biology in the first place.

---

The Problem Beneath the Surface

Medicine is only just beginning to reckon with a hard truth: most of its research has been built on male biology.

• Until 1993, women were actively excluded from most clinical trials.

• The vast majority of drug development historically used male mice for testing, to avoid the "complications" of female hormonal cycles.

• Today, women are 50–70% more likely than men to experience an adverse drug reaction. Why?

• Only 10.8% of NIH funding goes to research focused specifically on women’s health.

For some personal context — just last week, I was on the phone with my mom, who finished chemo for ovarian cancer in January. As we reviewed some of her genetic findings, it became clear that I am likely at elevated risk for several cancers as well. While there are some general prevention strategies being discussed, the guidance remains frustratingly vague. Even commonly used treatments or preventive measures lack sufficient long-term data. She verbatim said to me, “They really don’t know how this stuff works for women.” Perfect! Amazing.

When we call women's health a "nascent" field, it’s not because the demand is new. It’s because the science is playing catch-up. That makes it harder for startups to build with clear clinical data, harder for insurers to reimburse with confidence, and harder for investors to underwrite risk.

Again, VCs are used to investing in markets that are unknown or undefined. But something about this one—despite being half the population—still feels like the exception.

---

The Market Is Anything But Niche

Let’s be clear: women’s health is not niche.

• Women represent over 50% of the population.

• Women make 80–90% of healthcare decisions in the household.

• Conditions like PCOS, endometriosis, perimenopause, pelvic floor disorders, infertility, and autoimmune disease affect tens of millions of women in the U.S. alone.

• Plus, women are extremely active consumers. Take the beauty industry, for instance. Women make up an estimated 70-80% of spend in the beauty market, which is worth around ~$650B!! This isn’t altruism. It’s good business.

And yet, in 2024, only ~2% of healthcare VC funding went to women’s health startups.

We know how this ends. Whenever a massive unmet need is paired with new scientific breakthroughs, new business models, and cultural tailwinds, billion-dollar businesses emerge. We’ve seen it in fintech, climate tech, mental health, and more.

Women’s health will be no different.

---

The Path Forward: What Needs to Change

Let’s be clear: total VC funding for women’s health increased by about 55% YoY from 2023 to 2024 (even though the percentage of womens / total healthcare spend decreased). We’re beginning to see some promising momentum:

• Consumer-first startups (e.g., Evvy, Ritual) are collecting real-world data and pursuing clinical validation.

• Platforms like DotLab and Hera Biotech are building novel diagnostics to fill critical gaps in reproductive care.

• Specialized funds like Ingeborg, Portfolia, RH Capital and Avestria are paving the way with early checks.

Plus, some exciting funding rounds took place in the last year or so, including:

• Maven Clinic secured a $125M Series F, bringing the company’s valuation to $1.7B.

• Flo Health raised a >$200M Series C.

• Alloy raised $16M in Series A funding.

• Allara Health raised $26M in Series B funding.

• Pomelo Care raised a $46M series B.

• Millie announced a $12M Series A.

• Gameto announced their oversubscribed $33M Series B.

• Trellis Health emerged from Stealth with $1.8M in funding.

• …Among others!

But more is needed.

1. Research must catch up. Whether through government grants or private R&D partnerships, we need more studies focused specifically on women’s biology.

2. Payers must innovate. Reimbursement pathways for hormone therapy, diagnostics, and preventive care need to be expanded.

3. Investors must stretch. The best firms will find ways to diligence early-stage opportunities without perfect comps.

4. We need more female investors at the Partner level. :)

---

The DEI Backlash & the Road Ahead

Yes, we’re entering a moment where diversity and inclusion efforts are being politicized. That may make it harder to direct public research dollars into women's health. But that’s all the more reason why private capital matters.

We can't wait for the system to fix itself. The opportunity is too important—and too large.

Women’s health companies will become massive. The science is catching up. The market is already there. It’s just a matter of time.

The only question is: who’s going to lead the way?

**Would love to hear thoughts from others investing & building in this space.