A long-overlooked disparity in how medicine treats women has moved sharply up the agenda over the past two years, driven by research that for the first time attaches a concrete economic figure to the problem. Analysis published by the McKinsey Health Institute in partnership with the World Economic Forum estimated that closing the so-called women's health gap could add at least $1 trillion to the global economy each year by 2040, through reduced illness and increased participation in the workforce.
The same body of research found that women, on average, spend roughly 25 percent more of their lives in poor health than men. The gap is not primarily about lifespan, where women in most countries still live longer; it is about the years lived in ill health, disability, or unmanaged conditions. That distinction has reframed a debate that was long treated as a niche concern into one with measurable consequences for economies and labour markets.
What the research found
The central finding of the McKinsey–WEF analysis is that the health gap is both wide and addressable. Researchers identified that a significant share of the disparity stems from conditions that affect women specifically or disproportionately, and that many of these are underdiagnosed, undertreated, or poorly understood by comparison with conditions that affect men.
The report attributed the gap to several recurring factors. Women have historically been underrepresented in clinical trials, meaning treatments and dosages were frequently calibrated on male bodies. Conditions that predominantly affect women have received less research funding relative to their burden. And symptoms reported by women have, in documented cases across multiple health systems, been more likely to be dismissed or attributed to psychological rather than physical causes, delaying diagnosis.
The clinical trial legacy
One of the most frequently cited structural causes is the long exclusion of women from medical research. For decades, women of childbearing age were routinely left out of clinical trials, a practice that regulators in several countries did not begin to reverse until the 1990s. The consequence, researchers note, is a body of medical knowledge built disproportionately on male physiology.
That legacy continues to shape outcomes. Differences in how women metabolise certain drugs, present symptoms of cardiovascular conditions, and respond to standard treatments were not systematically studied for much of the modern history of medicine. Efforts to correct the imbalance are ongoing, but specialists quoted in coverage of the research have cautioned that closing a decades-long data gap is a long-term undertaking rather than a quick fix.
The economic argument
The framing that has given the issue new momentum is economic rather than purely medical. By quantifying the gap in terms of lost productivity and workforce participation, the research positioned women's health as a driver of economic growth rather than solely a question of equity.
According to the analysis, the bulk of the potential economic gain would come not from extending lifespans but from improving the quality of women's health during their working years — reducing the time lost to conditions that are treatable but inadequately managed. The report identified a relatively small number of conditions as accounting for a large proportion of the gap, suggesting that targeted investment could yield outsized returns.
Where attention is turning
The research has coincided with growing investment and policy interest in women's health. The market for products and services addressing women's health needs, sometimes labelled "femtech," has attracted increased funding, although it still represents a small fraction of overall health investment. Several governments and health systems have announced reviews or strategies aimed at addressing specific gaps, including in areas such as menopause care and conditions that have historically faced long diagnostic delays.
Analysts tracking the sector have noted that attention and funding remain uneven. Areas with clear commercial markets have drawn investment more readily than conditions affecting lower-income women or those without obvious commercial application, a pattern the underlying research itself flagged as a risk to closing the gap equitably.
The outlook
The quantification of the women's health gap has changed the terms of the discussion, shifting it from a matter framed largely around fairness to one supported by economic modelling. Whether that translates into sustained investment remains an open question, and the research itself stops short of guaranteeing outcomes, instead presenting the figures as the scale of an opportunity rather than a forecast.
What the data has established is a baseline against which future progress can be measured. With the gap now expressed in years of health lost and trillions of potential economic output, the issue has acquired metrics it previously lacked — a development that researchers say is a precondition for accountability, even if the harder work of closing the gap lies ahead.