The Women’s Health Dividend: Turning Evidence Into Economic Policy

This article has been sponsored by Bayer (full declaration of Bayer’s sponsorship can be found at the end of this article).

Improving women’s health is not only a moral or clinical imperative, it is an economic growth strategy. Looking at the recent publication of Curia’s latest report, The Women’s Health Dividend: The Economic Case for Action in the UK, the data are now irrefutable. Targeted investment in women’s health yields a benefit-cost ratio of 2.52:1, generating a net economic benefit of £4.47 million across the illustrative interventions modelled. For every £1 spent, the UK gains £2.52 in discounted benefits through higher productivity, lower NHS demand, and stronger labour-market participation.[1]

The findings could not be timelier. As the Chancellor looks for credible routes to expand labour supply and boost productivity ahead of the 2025 Budget, the evidence points squarely to women’s health as a major, underused lever for growth.

Women’s Health Hubs: the Local Engine of Change

Chaired by former Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities Paula Sherriff, Curia’s inquiry heard from clinicians, data scientists, and digital providers across the country. Its most persuasive case study came from a mature Women’s Health Hub model[2] – where leadership is shared between sexual and reproductive health, gynaecology, and general practice.

These hubs route women to the right clinician the first time, cutting waiting lists and keeping more activity in the community. They also enable rapid onward referral to secondary care when necessary, reducing unnecessary procedures and hospital pressures.

Yet, replication is inconsistent. Administrative frictions – incompatible data systems, payroll silos, and split commissioning – stall progress. The report calls for a standardised national hub specification, mandatory tri-leadership, and quarterly ICB dashboards reporting waits, access, and equity. The logic is clear: where governance is aligned, hubs flourish; where it is not, inequality deepens.

The Cost of Inaction and the Dividend of Reform

The report’s economic modelling quantifies what inaction costs the UK each year:

• £11 billion in lost work and healthcare from gynaecological and menstrual conditions[3],
• £1.5 billion from menopause-related workforce exits[4]
• £193 million in direct NHS costs from unplanned pregnancies[5]

Together, these represent an enormous, preventable drag on growth.

By contrast, practical interventions – menopause workplace support, pharmacy contraception services, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), and early treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) – offer exceptional returns. Menopause workplace support alone delivers a 10.4:1 benefit-cost ratio, largely through retention and reduced absence.

Crucially, the Inquiry adds a missing dimension: equity-weighted returns. Hyper-local analysis shows “HRT deserts” and unexpected patterns of unplanned pregnancy concentrated in deprived communities. Targeting investment by place – not national average – delivers greater marginal gains and narrows inequalities that blunt the wider economic impact.

Digital Inclusion as Core Infrastructure

Digital exclusion remains a hidden determinant of inequality. Commissioned, multilingual digital tools – such as the Essential Parent[6] model cited in the Inquiry – make evidence-based guidance available in more than 100 languages, covering contraception, menopause, heavy menstrual bleeding, and domestic abuse.

Evaluations show workflow savings worth tens of thousands of pounds per borough and a four-to-one return on investment, even before factoring in behavioural benefits.[7] For commissioners, the message is simple: digital inclusion pays for itself and should be written into every hub specification as standard, not as an optional extra.

Policy Priorities for Treasury and the NHS

The new report outlines an achievable policy roadmap:

1. Restore and standardise Women’s Health Hubs
   – Tri-leadership across sexual health, gynaecology, and general practice
   – One front door, multidisciplinary team, and real-time triage linked to elective recovery
2. Guarantee 48-hour access to effective contraception
   – Expand the Pharmacy Contraception Service and fast-track LARC fittings through hubs
3. Mandate menopause action plans in workplaces
   – Apply in the public sector and incentivise adoption across large employers, particularly in areas with low HRT access
4. Commission multilingual digital support
   – Integrate proven inclusion tools into Women’s Health Hubs and family-hub networks
5. Build a national accountability loop
   – Task the ONS and NHS England to co-publish a women’s-health-and-productivity dashboard tracking access, equity, and labour-market impact

These are not abstract reforms but immediate steps that align with Treasury priorities on growth and fiscal sustainability.

Why Women’s Health Is an Economic Imperative

Women make up just over half the workforce, and midlife women are its fastest-growing segment. Poor access to contraception, untreated heavy bleeding, and unmanaged menopause symptoms drive absence, presenteeism, and premature workforce exits – outcomes that depress productivity and tax revenues alike.

Conversely, timely intervention keeps experienced women in work, sustaining income, pensions, and economic output. Better women’s health also reduces public spending on acute care, social security, and emergency services.

As the Curia report notes, “Strategic investment in women’s health is one of the highest-return opportunities available to government – advancing growth, fiscal sustainability, and fairness at once.”

This conclusion has wide backing across the policy community, including support from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, and local system leaders now delivering hub models in Liverpool, Tower Hamlets, and Birmingham.

Final Thought: Capturing the Dividend

Women’s-health policy has long oscillated between slogans and siloed debates. The combined evidence from the Curia Inquiry and The Women’s Health Dividend report cuts through that noise.

We now have the numbers, the models, and the roadmap. The question is no longer whether women’s health drives growth, but whether policymakers will treat it as the economic infrastructure it is.

If government, employers, and ICBs act together – standardising hubs, funding access, and measuring what matters – the UK can convert one of its largest untapped social challenges into a source of national renewal.

This article has been developed by Chamber UK and funded through a sponsorship agreement by Bayer Public Limited Company which has supported the logistics and materials for this webinar/report. Bayer has had no editorial control over the final content of the material but have provided data to Chamber UK, for their consideration, to support with the development of this material and medicolegally reviewed the document for compliance in accordance to the ABPI Code of Practice. Chamber UK have maintained complete editorial control for the reports and outputs.

PP-PF-WHC-GB-1763

October 2025

[1] Request access to full report: The Women’s Health Dividend: the Economic Case for Action in the UK www.chamberuk.com/publications

[2] Request access to full report: The Women’s Health Dividend: the Economic Case for Action in the UK www.chamberuk.com/publications

[3] Request access to full report: The Women’s Health Dividend: the Economic Case for Action in the UK www.chamberuk.com/publications

[4] Request access to full report: The Women’s Health Dividend: the Economic Case for Action in the UK www.chamberuk.com/publications

[5] Request access to full report: The Women’s Health Dividend: the Economic Case for Action in the UK www.chamberuk.com/publications

[6] https://essentialparent.com/

[7] Request access to full report: The Women’s Health Dividend: the Economic Case for Action in the UK www.chamberuk.com/publications