The Gender Gap in Women’s Health Research and Treatment

For decades, women have been underrepresented in clinical research and medical trials. This lack of representation has created significant gaps in understanding female-specific health issues and led to limited evidence-based treatment options for women. The disparity isn’t merely academic—it has real human consequences. On average, women spend about 25% more time in poor health compared to men, roughly nine additional years of life lived in suboptimal health. Crucially, this gap is not due to biology alone; it’s largely the result of historic underfunding and neglect of women’s health in research. In the U.S., it wasn’t even until 1993 that federal law mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, reversing a long-standing practice of testing drugs and treatments primarily on men. The fallout is evident today in the form of misdiagnoses, knowledge blind spots, and therapies that don’t fully account for women’s needs. For instance, women are more likely to be misdiagnosed during heart attacks (and other conditions) because most cardiac research and training historically centered on male patients. In one striking example, it took until 2013 for the FDA to realize that the sleeping pill Ambien had been prescribed at double the appropriate dose for women, leading to next-day drowsiness and driving impairment; only then did regulators halve the recommended dosage for female patients. Such examples underscore how a legacy of gender bias in research can directly harm women’s health.

Beyond the personal health toll, the broader impact of these gaps is enormous. A recent analysis by the McKinsey Health Institute estimated that addressing the inequities in women’s health could add at least $1 trillion to the global economy each year. In other words, investing in women’s health isn’t just a moral imperative—it’s economically prudent, with a threefold return for every dollar spent. When women are healthier, they can be more productive at work, engage more in their communities, and require fewer healthcare resources, benefiting society as a whole. Unfortunately, the historical lack of investment means we’re starting far behind where we should be. Women today still experience higher rates of certain chronic conditions and disability. They spend a greater portion of their lives managing ill health, often in their prime working years. Closing this gender health gap would not only improve millions of women’s quality of life, but also unlock substantial social and economic gains.

One area where the gender gap in research and treatment is especially glaring is hormone health and therapy for women. Hormone-related conditions (from menopause to thyroid disorders to reproductive health issues) affect virtually every woman at some point, yet for a long time they were poorly studied or even dismissed by the medical establishment. Consider testosterone therapy as a case in point. Testosterone is commonly thought of as a “male” hormone, but it is biologically important for women as well—women produce testosterone naturally, and it plays roles in bone density, muscle mass, cognitive function, mood, sexual health, and overall energy. However, due to the gender skew in drug development, there are no FDA-approved testosterone treatments for women in the United States, despite evidence that some women (especially in menopause or with certain conditions) can benefit from carefully managed testosterone supplementation. Women with clinically significant testosterone deficiency or low libido have had no officially approved options; doctors must prescribe male-formulated products off-label in tiny doses, or turn to compounded medications. In contrast, more than 30 FDA-approved testosterone therapies exist for men in the U.S.. This stark imbalance underscores how women’s health needs have often been overlooked by major research and pharmaceutical efforts. The lack of financial incentive is one reason—since testosterone itself is a generic, naturally occurring substance that can’t be patented, companies have little motivation to fund the expensive trials needed to approve a women-specific product. But the end result is that women have been left without the same array of safe, regulated treatment options that men have. It’s a vivid example of how a gender gap in research leads to a gap in care.

Importantly, the gender gap in health research doesn’t only shortchange women in areas unique to female biology—it affects how we treat all diseases in women, from cardiovascular disease to depression. Until the early 1990s, women (especially those of childbearing age) were often excluded from drug trials due to overcautious safety concerns and biases. Even animal research frequently used male lab animals to avoid hormonal cycle “complexities” – a shortcut that left scientific understanding of female physiology decades behind. As a result, many common conditions that affect both sexes (like heart disease, autoimmune disorders, or chronic pain) have been understood primarily through a male lens. Treatments derived from such evidence might not work as well for women, or may produce different side effects that weren’t anticipated. The good news is that awareness of these issues has grown, and policies have slowly shifted toward more inclusive research. But we are still catching up on knowledge that should have been generated long ago. Dr. Anita Holdcroft famously asked in 2007 how evidence-based medicine can be truly evidence-based if half the population was routinely ignored in research. Today, researchers echo that sentiment as they uncover persistent gaps—for example, a 2024 Harvard analysis highlighted that 99% of biological studies on aging in animals did not consider menopause or female aging factors, leaving doctors “falling behind” in treating age-related diseases in women. In short, our medical system is still recalibrating after generations of one-sided data. The journey toward equity involves systematically identifying where the blind spots are and investing in closing those gaps with rigorous research and updated clinical practices.

Discover Our Women’s Health Products

View All Products

The Misunderstood Risks of Hormone Therapy

One of the most significant chapters in modern women’s health is the story of menopausal hormone therapy – a story that perfectly illustrates how gaps in research and miscommunication can lead to fear-driven decisions. Menopause, which every woman experiences if she lives long enough, often comes with life-altering symptoms: hot flashes, night sweats, insomnia, mood swings, brain fog, sexual discomfort, and more. Starting in the mid-20th century, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), usually a combination of estrogen and progestin, became a popular treatment to alleviate these symptoms and was even presumed to prevent various chronic diseases of aging in women. By the late 1990s, HRT was widely used – around the year 2000, roughly one in four American women in menopause were taking hormones, and HRT was often touted as a way for women to stay “feminine forever” or “healthy forever” into older age.

Everything changed in 2002, when initial results of the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) trial were abruptly announced. The WHI, begun in 1993, was the largest randomized women’s health study ever, enrolling 161,808 postmenopausal women at 40 U.S. medical centers. It had multiple components (dietary changes, supplements, etc.), but its hormone therapy arms were intended to clarify the risks and benefits of long-term HRT. Women with a uterus were given either estrogen-progestin therapy or placebo, while women who’d had hysterectomies got estrogen alone or placebo. After an average of just 5.2 years, the combined estrogen-progestin arm was stopped early. The data showed an unexpected increase in breast cancer cases and a slight uptick in heart attacks, strokes, and blood clots in the women on hormones compared to placebo. To many, this was a shocking reversal – instead of protecting the heart as observational studies suggested, HRT might actually be causing harm. The news made global headlines, and the reaction was swift and seismic. The notion that HRT could increase cancer or heart disease scared both doctors and patients on a profound level. Practically overnight, millions of women stopped hormone therapy and physicians sharply curtailed new prescriptions. Use of HRT plummeted by over 50% within a year in the U.S. and continued dropping in subsequent years. By 2005, HRT usage had fallen by roughly 70–75% from its pre-WHI peak, and it has hovered in the single digits percentage-wise ever since. It’s hard to overstate the level of fear and confusion that took hold. Women who had been happily managing symptoms were suddenly told to “stop hormones” as a precaution. Many went back to suffering in silence, believing that enduring severe menopause symptoms was safer than the supposedly deadly cure. And many clinicians, too, became reluctant to prescribe HRT at all, even for patients in dire need of relief.

However, in hindsight, the WHI findings were not the simple death knell for hormone therapy that many assumed. The study was absolutely valid in demonstrating that HRT is not a one-size-fits-all preventative for older women – but the initial reporting of results was arguably incomplete, lacking crucial context about age and timing. Over the years following 2002, scientists delved deeper into the WHI data and conducted follow-up studies, and a much more nuanced picture emerged. It turns out that the risks and benefits of hormone therapy depend strongly on when a woman starts therapy, her age and health status, the dose and type of hormones, and the route of delivery. The blanket statement “HRT is dangerous” was an oversimplification.

Firstly, age matters. The average age of women in the WHI was 63 – well past menopause for most, meaning many had gone 10+ years with low estrogen. Later analyses found that women who were younger and closer to the onset of menopause had very different outcomes than the older participants. In women under 60 or within 10 years of menopause, HRT did not show the same pattern of harms. In fact, for many of these women, the therapy conferred net benefits (relieving symptoms and potentially even reducing some health risks) with minimal absolute risk. By contrast, starting hormones in one’s mid-60s or 70s (after a long period of estrogen deprivation) seemed to carry greater dangers, especially for the heart, and less clear benefit. This concept became known as the “timing hypothesis” – suggesting there may be a window of opportunity near menopause where estrogen therapy is safer or more beneficial, whereas initiating it much later is ill-advised.

Secondly, not all hormone therapies are identical. The WHI tested one specific regimen (oral conjugated equine estrogen – Premarin – with a synthetic progestin called MPA). We now know that different formulations and delivery methods have different risk profiles. For example, estrogen-alone therapy (for women who don’t need progestin) was found to have no increase in breast cancer or heart attack risk in the WHI’s estrogen-only trial up to nearly 7 years of use. In fact, estrogen-alone users in that study had a trend toward lower breast cancer incidence than placebo. Their main risk was a slight increase in stroke, but no overall increase in mortality. Meanwhile, transdermal estrogen (patches or gels absorbed through the skin) appears to carry lower risks of blood clots and perhaps less effect on blood pressure than oral pills, because it doesn’t spike estrogen levels in the liver. Similarly, micronized progesterone (a bioidentical form) may have a different risk profile than MPA. These distinctions were not appreciated in 2002 when all forms of hormone therapy were painted with the same broad brush in warnings.

Thanks to ongoing research (including 20-year follow-ups of WHI participants), expert consensus has now shifted to a more balanced view: For most healthy women in their 50s or early 60s who are experiencing moderate to severe menopausal symptoms, the benefits of HRT often outweigh the risks. Leading medical organizations – including The Menopause Society (formerly NAMS), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the American Heart Association – now emphasize that hormone therapy is a reasonable and safe choice for the right candidates: typically women under 60 (or within 10 years of menopause onset) who have significant symptoms or other indications, and no contraindications. For these women, HRT can dramatically improve quality of life and may confer protection against osteoporosis and possibly colon cancer, with very low absolute risks of serious side effects when used for a finite period. On the other hand, for women over 60 or those well past menopause, especially if they have existing cardiovascular disease or risk factors, the scales tilt – HRT is generally not recommended for chronic disease prevention, and any use must be more carefully individualized. The mantra is personalization: “the right therapy for the right woman at the right time.” This is a far cry from the one-size-fits-all approach or the all-or-nothing panic that once prevailed.

Unfortunately, public perception has been slower to catch up to this nuanced reality. Many women remain understandably wary of hormones due to outdated information – after all, the WHI’s initial report and the ensuing media storm left an enduring impression that “HRT = high risk.” In clinics today, it’s common to meet women in their 40s or 50s who are suffering with intense menopause symptoms but believe hormone therapy is too dangerous to even consider. Some recall hearing that HRT causes breast cancer or heart attacks and thus avoid it entirely, even when they have no other effective relief. In some cases, even doctors (especially those who haven’t stayed current with menopause care) still echo those blanket warnings from 20 years ago. For example, estrogen’s packaging still carries a bold-faced “black box” warning listing scary outcomes like cancer, blood clots, and dementia – wording that hasn’t substantively changed since 2003. These warnings do not distinguish between a low-dose vaginal estrogen used for local symptoms and a high-dose systemic pill, nor do they reflect the latest evidence on differential risk. As a result, many women pick up an estrogen prescription for, say, treating vaginal dryness, read the all-caps caution about strokes and dementia, and understandably throw the medicine away in fear. Doctors report that patients’ spouses even intervene after reading the label, saying “I don’t want you on this, it’s not worth the risk”. In reality, localized vaginal estrogen (used for genitourinary symptoms like dryness or recurrent UTIs) has minimal systemic absorption and virtually none of the risks listed on that black box. It is considered extremely safe and effective for vaginal atrophy, with major professional societies urging the FDA to remove the exaggerated warning from these products. Yet, the outdated labeling and lingering misconceptions continue to deter women from therapies that could greatly improve their well-being and long-term health.

The consequences of avoiding hormone therapy due to fear can be significant. Menopausal symptoms aren’t just quality-of-life issues (though that alone is important enough); they also have downstream health implications. Untreated chronic menopause symptoms have been linked to serious longer-term risks, including osteoporosis and even cognitive decline. For example, estrogen plays a key role in maintaining bone density. When estrogen levels plunge at menopause, bone resorption accelerates sharply – in fact, women can lose about 20% of their bone mass in the first 5–7 years after menopause. Without intervention, this can lead to osteopenia and osteoporosis, greatly increasing the risk of fractures (hip fractures, in particular, can be life-altering or life-threatening in older women). Hormone therapy is one of the most effective ways to prevent rapid bone loss and reduce fracture risk in early postmenopausal women, yet many have foregone it out of concern. Similarly, there is ongoing research into estrogen’s role in brain health. Estrogen receptors are found in the brain, and some studies suggest that estrogen may have neuroprotective effects – potentially influencing memory, reducing amyloid plaque accumulation, or modulating brain aging processes. It’s too early to say HRT prevents dementia (the evidence so far is mixed and complex), but there are hints that starting HRT around menopause could lower the risk of Alzheimer’s or delay cognitive decline in some women. At the very least, we know that severe menopause symptoms like sleep disruption and depression can harm cognitive and mental health in the short term, and untreated sleep apnea or insomnia (which hot flashes can cause) is a risk factor for cognitive problems. So ensuring women get proper treatment during menopause is about more than just easing a temporary discomfort—it could influence their health trajectory for decades to come. In short, the knee-jerk abandonment of hormone therapy has had its own costs. As one endocrinologist quipped, the “estrogen pendulum” may have swung too far toward fear after 2002, and it’s gradually swinging back toward balance as evidence is re-contextualized.

The bottom line: Women deserve personalized, evidence-based care, not one-size-fits-all edicts or fear-driven avoidance of treatment. Menopause is a natural phase of life, but that doesn’t mean women must suffer needlessly or face increased health risks without options. The key is to replace outdated warnings and anxiety with up-to-date knowledge and individualized risk assessment. For the majority of symptomatic women in their 40s, 50s, or early 60s, modern hormone therapy (using bioidentical estradiol and progesterone, at appropriate doses, via safe delivery methods) can be a game-changer for quality of life, and can be used for a duration that mitigates risks. For others who cannot or prefer not to use hormones, there are non-hormonal treatments emerging (such as new medications for hot flashes, like neurokinin receptor blockers). The critical point is that no woman should feel dismissed or resigned to “just deal with it” when it comes to menopause or other women’s health concerns. With knowledge in hand, she can make an informed choice that fits her values and medical profile.

Watch: A Defining Moment for Women’s Hormone Health

🎥 Watch the full video here
Hormone Therapy and the Future of Women’s Health

This recorded panel from July 2025 features leading clinicians, researchers, and policy advocates coming together to correct two decades of confusion about hormone therapy. It is one of the most important public conversations yet on how outdated science, misleading headlines, and regulatory inertia have kept millions of women from accessing the care they need.

Why it matters
This was not a routine medical discussion. It was a public call to action. Experts challenged the foundational misinterpretations of the Women’s Health Initiative study, explained why current labeling on hormone products is misleading, and urged the FDA to modernize its approach to menopause care.

If you are a clinician, a patient, or a policymaker looking for clarity, this video is essential viewing. It captures the growing momentum behind a national movement to replace fear with facts and to restore evidence-based, individualized care for women at midlife and beyond.

Why This Matters: The Long-Term Health Impact

It’s worth zooming out to re-emphasize why closing the gender gap in research and treatment is so important. The discussion above highlights menopause and hormones, but the pattern repeats across many areas of women’s health. When women’s specific needs are overlooked or misunderstood, it doesn’t only result in unmet immediate needs – it also contributes to longer-term health disparities that can literally shorten women’s lives or reduce their years of healthy living. Women today live longer than men on average, but paradoxically they spend more years in poor health. Part of this is due to the cumulative effect of under-treating or mis-treating conditions throughout a woman’s life.

Consider osteoporosis, sometimes called the “silent disease.” It predominantly affects women (especially postmenopausal women) and is a direct consequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that occur with age. If we don’t proactively address bone loss in women – either through hormone therapy, calcium/vitamin D, weight-bearing exercise, or newer osteoporosis drugs – we are effectively setting women up for fractures, disability, and loss of independence as they age. The gap here is not one of not knowing how to treat osteoporosis (we have effective tools), but often failing to apply them early enough in women’s lives. For instance, a woman who goes through menopause at 50 and is never offered any therapy may, by 60, have significantly weakened bones. A hip fracture at 65 can be catastrophic, with high mortality and morbidity. Yet surveys show many women are never counseled about the connection between menopause and bone health. In fact, it’s estimated that only a small fraction of postmenopausal women with risk factors are receiving osteoporosis prevention or treatment. This is a gap in translating research (which clearly links estrogen loss to bone loss) into routine care.

Another example is cardiovascular disease. Heart disease is the #1 killer of women, as it is for men. But women’s heart health has its own nuances – for example, heart attacks in women often present with atypical symptoms (like fatigue, indigestion, back pain) rather than the “Hollywood” chest-clutching pain that many male patients exhibit. For years, these differences meant women’s heart attacks were more frequently missed or attributed to anxiety. Only in the last two decades have campaigns stressed that “heart disease is not just a man’s disease” and encouraged research into sex-specific factors. Menopause is one such factor: after menopause, women’s risk of heart disease rises markedly, possibly related to changes in cholesterol profiles, vascular function, and abdominal fat distribution influenced by the loss of estrogen. If we ignore menopause in research (as was largely done in the past), we miss a key piece of the heart health puzzle for half the population. Encouragingly, studies like the WHI (despite initial confusion) have ultimately helped delineate how we might safely mitigate some of these risks – for instance, by treating younger menopausal women with estrogen to improve their lipid profiles or artery function, while being cautious in older women. The overarching point is that tailoring treatments and prevention strategies to women’s life cycles can yield better outcomes and possibly even save lives. Preventing one heart attack or one hip fracture in a woman has a ripple effect on her family and community, too – it means she remains a healthy, active participant in society.

Then there are conditions that are unique to or far more common in women, which historically languished in obscurity. Take autoimmune diseases like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis: these affect women disproportionately and can be devastating. Why? In part, female immune systems behave differently (likely due to genetic and hormonal influences), but for years the research community didn’t prioritize sex differences in immunology. As a result, women with autoimmune diseases often went through diagnostic odysseys or were told their symptoms (fatigue, pain) were “in their head.” That’s gradually improving as research sheds light on, say, the interplay of estrogen and immune response. Another example is endometriosis, a painfully common condition (affecting an estimated 1 in 10 women of reproductive age) where tissue similar to the uterine lining grows elsewhere in the pelvis, causing severe pain and often infertility. Despite its prevalence, endometriosis was under-researched for a long time, and women’s complaints of pain were frequently dismissed. It still takes many women years and multiple doctor visits to get a proper diagnosis. Why? Because historically, women’s pelvic pain wasn’t a priority in medical training or research funding; it was written off as “bad periods” or stress. Only recently has endometriosis started to get the attention commensurate with its impact, and researchers are trying to understand its causes (immune dysfunction? inflammatory pathways?) to develop better treatments beyond just hormonal suppression or surgery.

The cumulative effect of all these gaps is that women often receive less optimal care throughout life. By the time they reach older age, the burden of unmanaged or under-managed health issues results in more years lived with disability or illness. In fact, a McKinsey analysis quantified that closing the gender health gap could potentially add years of healthy life for women globally. It’s not that women are “sicker” by nature; it’s that our healthcare system hasn’t served them as well. Changing this is not only a matter of justice but also of improving overall public health. An investment in women’s health research is truly an investment in families and communities, because women play central roles as caregivers, workers, and leaders. When women’s health needs are met, everyone benefits – workplaces have more productive employees (currently, menopause symptoms alone are estimated to cost billions in lost productivity each year), families have healthier mothers and grandmothers, and healthcare systems spend less on the complications of neglected issues.

It’s also critical to acknowledge that within the category of “women,” there are additional disparities. Women of color, in particular, face a double burden – the intersection of gender bias and racial/ethnic bias in healthcare. For instance, Black women in the U.S. are less likely to have their pain adequately treated, less likely to receive timely interventions for heart disease, and more likely to encounter dismissive attitudes (stemming from false stereotypes) when seeking care. In the context of menopause, studies from the long-running SWAN project (Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation) have found that Black women tend to experience menopause earlier and with more intense symptoms (hot flashes, night sweats, mood changes) than their white counterparts – yet they are less likely to receive treatment or support for those symptoms. One analysis attributed this to the “enduring influence of structural racism,” noting that Black women often had higher stress burdens, lower access to quality healthcare, and less trust in medical providers (for good historical reason), all of which contributed to worse menopause experiences and midlife health outcomes. Similarly, Hispanic/Latina women also report heavier symptom burdens on average. If the medical community isn’t aware of these disparities, they can’t be addressed. Culturally competent care and targeted outreach are needed so that women of all backgrounds benefit from advances in women’s health research. It’s encouraging that recent documentaries and public discussions (like the 2024 PBS film “The [M] Factor: Shredding the Silence on Menopause”) have intentionally amplified diverse women’s voices – including women of color – describing their healthcare struggles during menopause. Their stories highlight issues like racial biases in pain management, dismissal of symptoms by doctors who are uninformed about menopause, and the economic fallout when women don’t get proper treatment. For example, a Black woman featured in one forum shared how her severe hot flashes and insomnia were initially written off by her (white, male) doctor, who told her to “just lose weight and relax.” Only after she switched to a provider knowledgeable about menopause did she get HRT and finally start sleeping again – by then, she had gone through months of suffering that cost her a job promotion and eroded her quality of life. Unfortunately, such narratives are not uncommon. They underscore why educating both healthcare professionals and the public is so vital. Every woman’s experience matters, and no one should fall through the cracks because of biases or misconceptions.

In sum, the long-term health impact of getting women’s care right is profound. It’s about adding not just years to women’s lives, but adding life to their years. When women can live their midlife and older years free of debilitating symptoms, fragile bones, or untreated depression, they remain active contributors to society. They can pursue careers longer if they choose, care for loved ones, volunteer, and share their wisdom and skills. Conversely, if we continue on the old path – where women’s health concerns are under-researched and under-treated – we’ll see a growing cohort of older women with preventable health issues, which will strain healthcare systems and families. As populations age globally, this becomes an urgent economic issue as well as a personal one. The encouraging news is that momentum is finally building to address these gaps, as we’ll explore next.

The Future: Bridging the Research and Treatment Gap

The path forward requires a concerted effort on multiple fronts to bridge the long-standing gap between men’s and women’s health outcomes. Closing the gender gap in research and treatment will not happen by accident; it must be driven by deliberate policy, innovation, and education. Here are a few key priorities moving ahead:

• Greater representation of women (of all ages and backgrounds) in clinical trials and research: We need to ensure that new drugs and interventions are tested on the populations who will use them – this means mandating inclusion of women and analyzing data by sex. It also means including pregnant and breastfeeding women in research when ethically possible, rather than automatically excluding them and leaving huge evidence voids. When women are properly represented, treatments can be tailored to their physiology, and dosing can be optimized (as the Ambien case taught us). Representation should also extend to female animals and cells in basic research; NIH now encourages grantees to use female lab animals and to report sex-specific data. By studying female biology as rigorously as male biology, we can uncover sex-specific disease mechanisms (for example, why women are more prone to autoimmune diseases, or how menopause influences Alzheimer’s pathology) and then develop targeted therapies. In short, women must no longer be an afterthought in research design – they should be at the table from the inception of studies.

• Putting women’s health issues on the policy and funding agenda: Historically, women’s health (beyond reproduction) was rarely a priority for major funding agencies. That’s starting to change. In 2023, for the first time, the NIH tracked spending on menopause research – and found it was only about 1% of its budget. Recognizing this shortfall, lawmakers and advocates are pushing for more. In 2024, a bipartisan bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate to authorize $125 million for menopause research and education. Some states have passed laws to improve menopause care and coverage. These are promising developments, but more is needed. Funding should flow into neglected areas like autoimmune diseases in women, female-specific cancers (ovarian, uterine), chronic pain conditions (which disproportionately affect women), and mental health conditions that have sex differences. With adequate funding, talented researchers will flock to these fields and drive innovations. Imagine a world where there’s as much excitement (and venture capital) around menopause solutions as there is around, say, prostate cancer drugs – that’s the kind of shift we need to truly close the gap.

• Education and training to dispel outdated myths: A critical piece of the puzzle is educating both healthcare providers and women themselves with up-to-date, factual information. The legacy of the WHI and other past missteps has left a lot of “mythology” in women’s health. For example, many clinicians who trained in the 1990s or early 2000s might still believe “HRT is too dangerous” and thus never even bring it up, leaving a patient to suffer. Continuing medical education (CME) programs in women’s health, menopause management, and sex-specific medicine need to be promoted and incentivized. Likewise, medical and nursing schools should incorporate these topics into their core curriculum – not as a side elective. On the public side, we need to continue the cultural conversation that has begun. It’s heartening that menopause has recently been covered by major outlets (The New York Times, NPR, etc.) as an important health topic, not a punchline. The more we talk openly about things like menopause, menstruation, postpartum depression, or PCOS, the more we erode the stigma and silence that often allowed misinformation to thrive. Empowering women with knowledge is itself a form of preventative care; a woman informed about her options is more likely to advocate for herself and get appropriate treatment. Community health workshops, documentaries, online forums, and patient advocacy groups all play a role in spreading accurate information and personal stories that women can relate to.

• Innovation in treatment options, especially where current options are lacking: We must spur research into new therapies for women’s health issues that have few good solutions. For menopause symptoms, for example, there is active work on novel non-hormonal drugs (like NK3 antagonists for hot flashes) and better hormonal formulations (perhaps a safe FDA-approved testosterone for women!). The FDA needs to be a partner in this, not a barrier. It’s encouraging that the FDA has shown openness to revisiting old policies – for instance, an FDA advisory panel in July 2025 met specifically to address menopause treatment gaps, signaling a new level of attention at the highest regulatory levels. In that meeting, experts urged the FDA to reevaluate the onerous black box warning on estrogen products, calling it outdated and overly broad given current evidence. They also highlighted how limited the treatment arsenal is for menopausal women and encouraged fostering innovation in therapies, including finally pursuing approval of a testosterone therapy designed for women. While the panel’s recommendations are not binding, the very fact it took place shows momentum. We are likely to see, in the near future, companies investing in women’s health technology (“femtech”), from better contraceptives to endometriosis drugs to upgraded HRT formulations. Some innovations may be digital – for instance, apps that help track and manage menopause symptoms, or AI tools that personalize HRT dosing. Others may be traditional pharma solutions. The key is that the gap in incentive (that long favored diseases affecting both sexes or primarily men) is closing, as stakeholders realize women’s health is a valuable market as well as a moral imperative. Removing unnecessary regulatory hurdles – like adjusting that black box label for low-dose vaginal estrogen, which the panel endorsed – can immediately improve access, because more providers will feel comfortable prescribing and more women will feel safe using these therapies. And encouraging the development of new medications (for example, by offering grants or fast-track review for women’s health drugs) could yield breakthroughs that make the next generation of care markedly better.

In 2024, the documentary “The [M] Factor: Shredding the Silence on Menopause” premiered, and it encapsulates both how far we’ve come and how far we have yet to go. It featured real women sharing their menopause journeys – some heartbreaking, some inspiring – and in doing so, it shattered the taboo that once kept these conversations in the shadows. Women of different races and backgrounds in the film recounted struggling to find help in a system not set up for them, encountering clinicians who were ignorant of menopause or dismissive of women’s pain, and feeling like they had to become their own health advocates. Yet, the film also spotlighted the growing movement of doctors, researchers, and patients pushing for change: from online menopause support communities to new research initiatives and even legislative advocacy. As one expert in the film put it, “Menopause has been marginalized in medicine for forever, but we’re finally seeing it get a seat at the table.” This shift – from silence to speaking out, from acceptance of the status quo to demanding progress – is exactly what is needed across all of women’s health.

By shifting the conversation from fear to facts, we empower women to make informed decisions about their health. When women are given clear, evidence-based information (with neither scaremongering nor sugar-coating), they can weigh the benefits and risks according to their personal values and circumstances. In the context of hormone therapy, this means a woman can say, “Yes, I understand there is a very small increased risk of X, but the improvement in my day-to-day life is worth it to me,” or conversely, “I prefer to try non-hormonal methods first.” In the context of other conditions, it means women won’t delay seeking help due to shame or misinformation – whether it’s for incontinence, sexual pain, mood changes, or anything else. Education erodes stigma and builds confidence.

From a larger lens, bridging the research and treatment gap is about equity and excellence in healthcare. It’s about ensuring that being born female does not come with a healthcare disadvantage. We have seen what happens when it does: women suffer needlessly, outcomes worsen, and costs go up. But we are now, finally, at a turning point. The convergence of new research, vocal advocacy, political will, and public awareness is creating a ripe environment for meaningful change. The 2025 FDA panel was one such milestone – a recognition at the federal level that women’s health needs have been systematically underserved and that this must change. At that meeting, experts not only discussed labeling, but also the broader need for provider education and updated care guidelines. They acknowledged that menopause affects every woman differently, and treatment should reflect that complexity rather than a one-size approach. Standard therapies (like a single dose of one hormone pill) don’t work for everyone, and many women today are left without any option that truly meets their needs or comfort level. The panelists called for more innovation and flexibility – whether that’s custom-compounded therapies (with proper oversight), alternative dosing schedules, or integrative approaches. Importantly, they also underscored the value of personalized risk assessment: a healthy 52-year-old with severe hot flashes should be viewed differently than a 65-year-old smoker with a history of blood clots when it comes to hormone therapy decisions. All of this sounds like common sense, but it represents a shift from how things were done in the past.

Momentum Builds: A New Era in Women’s Health Care

As momentum builds, there is finally hope of closing the long-neglected gaps. On July 17, 2025, the FDA convened a public Expert Panel on Menopause and Hormone Replacement Therapy for Women – a historic meeting shining a spotlight on menopause as a public health priority. Over the course of two hours, clinicians, researchers, and women’s health advocates presented evidence and perspectives directly to FDA leadership. They urged the agency to push for innovation, expand education, and modernize regulatory policies to better serve women. Among the top recommendations was removing or revising the “black box” warning on low-dose vaginal estrogen products, which experts argued was inaccurate and based on outdated data that do not reflect the true minimal risks of localized therapy. Dr. Heather Hirsch, one of the panelists, emphasized that these warnings have done more harm than good by scaring women away from effective treatments for genitourinary syndrome of menopause, even though “vaginal estrogen is categorically safe for all women, period”. Panelists also highlighted the imbalance in available therapies for menopause, noting that there is still no FDA-approved testosterone option for women suffering from low libido or other androgen-deficiency symptoms, whereas men have an entire menu of hormone therapies. They encouraged the FDA to facilitate research and approval in this arena – for example, by working with pharmaceutical companies to design appropriate trials for female testosterone therapy and by treating it as an unmet medical need.

The sentiment in the room was clear: it is time to end the era of neglect and paternalism in women’s health care. Even though the panel itself did not have authority to change policy on the spot (and it did not involve a formal vote), their consensus sends a powerful signal to the FDA and the industry. The FDA Commissioner, Dr. Marty Makary, who organized the meeting, has been outspoken about avoiding “medical groupthink” that can harm patients. He cited the hormone therapy warnings as a prime example – a well-intentioned caution that perhaps went too far and became dogma, deterring needed care. The fact that the FDA is willing to publicly revisit this shows a refreshing openness to change. If the FDA ultimately moves to adjust the labeling (which many believe it will, following the panel’s feedback and pending further review), it could immediately make both doctors and patients more comfortable in using appropriate hormone therapies. As one observer noted, “If that black box comes off, it’s like the cloud of fear lifts a bit.”

This renewed attention at high levels is bringing long-needed momentum to an area of healthcare that has historically been under-served. Menopause and midlife women’s health have sat on the sidelines of public discourse and funding for too long, but now they are taking center stage. And it’s not just menopause: the same awakening is happening for other women’s health topics. There’s increasing research into conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) (which affects metabolic health and fertility), postpartum depression (now with the first FDA-approved medication specifically for it), and female sexual dysfunction (with new therapies being explored). We are, slowly but surely, shifting from a paradigm of reactive women’s healthcare – where problems are addressed late, if at all – to a paradigm of proactive and preventive care that recognizes women’s unique health journeys.

At Empower Pharmacy, we wholeheartedly support this shift toward better, more personalized care for women. Our mission has always been to help healthcare providers deliver tailored treatment solutions that meet individual patient needs – because we know every woman is different, and a cookie-cutter approach is not good enough. We specialize in custom-compounded medications, including a full spectrum of women’s health therapies such as bio-identical hormones (estradiol, progesterone, testosterone), thyroid preparations, and more, precisely because we recognize that standard commercially available options don’t fit everyone. In the context of menopause, for example, some women may do best on a unique dosing of estrogen/progesterone that isn’t offered in a mass-produced form – that’s where compounding can fill the gap, under a practitioner’s guidance, to optimize symptom relief while minimizing side effects. We’ve seen first-hand the difference it makes when a woman’s treatment is finely tuned to her body: it can be life-changing, turning back the clock on years of fatigue or discomfort.

As momentum builds in the wider community, Empower is excited to be part of the solution. We are continually updating our formulations and services in light of the latest evidence. We maintain rigorous quality and safety standards so that providers and patients can trust the personalized therapies we dispense. By prioritizing individual needs, we can help close the gap in care that so many women have experienced. Our goal is that no woman should feel like she has “nowhere to turn” when facing a health challenge – be it menopausal symptoms, fertility issues, or anything in between. We work closely with healthcare practitioners as an extension of the care team, providing clinical expertise on dosing and combinations, so that together we achieve the best outcomes for patients.

Women’s health is finally getting the attention it deserves from regulators, researchers, and society at large. This is a moment of opportunity to rewrite the narrative – from one of gaps and inequities to one of empowerment and innovation. Every woman, at every stage of life, deserves comprehensive, evidence-based care that helps her live life to the fullest. That means being unafraid to use the tools at our disposal (like hormone therapy for menopause) when appropriate, and also pushing for new tools where they are lacking (like more targeted treatments for conditions that have few options). It means treating women not as small men or “atypical” patients, but as the central participants in their healthcare that they are.

The journey isn’t over, but the path ahead is clearer than ever. By continuing to champion research inclusion, update outdated guidelines, invest in new therapies, and educate both providers and patients, we can ensure that the next generation of women enjoys better health than the last. Empower Pharmacy is proud to contribute to this brighter future for women’s health. We invite healthcare providers and patients alike to join us in advancing personalized care.

Together, let’s close the gap – and give women the healthy, vibrant lives they deserve.

Discover Our Women’s Health Products: We offer a comprehensive portfolio of compounded medications for women’s health – from bioidentical hormone replacement therapies (BHRT) in various dosage forms, to thyroid and adrenal support, to treatments for sexual health and more. View All Products to see how tailored therapy can make a difference in your patients’ lives.

Why Choose Empower: Our pharmacy team includes clinical experts in women’s health who collaborate with providers to optimize treatment plans. All our compounds are made under stringent quality controls in PCAB-accredited labs. We source only high-grade active ingredients and use state-of-the-art technology to ensure precision and purity in every prescription. We also provide extensive patient education materials and support, because informed patients have better outcomes.

Get in Touch – Partner with Us: If you’re a healthcare provider looking to expand your women’s health offerings or a patient seeking more information, we’re here to help. Connect with a clinic liaison to explore how Empower can support your practice and your patients. We can assist with protocol development, dosage form selection (creams, troches, injectables, etc.), and even insurance coordination for compounded therapies. Get Started and join us in empowering women’s health through personalized care.