The workforce and economic case for women's health investment

The economic burden of women's health conditions in Australia is large and largely invisible. Endometriosis alone costs the Australian economy an estimated $7.4 to $9.7 billion annually, according to research published by UNSW and PwC. Most of that is not direct medical expenditure — it is productivity lost to diagnostic delays averaging 6.5 years, absenteeism, presenteeism, and reduced workforce participation. The Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre estimated the net annual cost of reproductive health-related absence at $1.7 billion under mid-range assumptions.

These numbers reflect a systemic underinvestment. Only 3.3% of government research funding in 2023–24 was directed to women's health, and most was narrowly focused on reproductive or sexual health — missing the broader life-course conditions (menopause, autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular disease presenting differently in women) that drive the largest economic impacts. Women represent over 75% of autoimmune disease patients, yet autoimmune conditions receive a fraction of the research investment proportionate to their burden.

The productivity framing matters because it connects women's health to the language that drives budget allocation. When the Productivity Commission or Treasury models workforce participation, the assumptions about health burden are baked in — but rarely interrogated at the disease-area level. Making those costs visible, condition by condition, changes the calculus for both public and private investment.

An investment platform that can demonstrate reduced time-to-diagnosis, faster adoption of evidence-based treatments, and improved workforce outcomes is not just serving patients — it is generating a return that the economy can measure. That is the bridge between social good and investable thesis.