Let’s care for those who care for us – and end medical misogyny

To give just a few examples: less than 2.5 per cent of publicly funded research is dedicated to reproductive health, but one in three women will suffer from problems during their lifetime; women are 50 per cent more likely than men to receive an initial wrong diagnosis when having a heart attack; and it takes more than eight years to get an endometriosis diagnosis.

Women’s pain is too often dismissed, recorded as emotional, or misunderstood and misdiagnosed. The government’s own research found that 84 per cent of women felt they were not always listened to by healthcare professionals.

The UK loses 150m working days every year due to women’s poor health and inadequate support, and the impact has a disproportionate knock-on effect because women comprise 77 per cent of our NHS workforce and 85 per cent of social workers. Are we caring for those who care for us? 

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) published a 10-year women’s health strategy in 2022, but this was based on a call for evidence, not a review of the NHS, and there was very little representation from lower socio-economic backgrounds. It was poorly conceived and poorly executed. Women’s health outcome measures have worsened, not improved, since the introduction of the women’s health strategy. It is not fit for purpose, and it is not future-proof.

A £25m initiative to set up women’s health hubs was eye-catching but flawed; many are virtual, and they lack structure, staffing and equipment. We need to transfer the diagnosis and care from hospitals to communities. Women’s health hubs should be physical spaces with ultrasound equipment and blood test facilities, providing a quick diagnosis of gynaecological conditions and using digital technology to transfer the information to secondary care. 

Crucially, this should not require an injection of new money. The reforms can be delivered within the existing budget by diverting the funds from secondary care to women’s health hubs in communities. But the hubs must be designed and located in response to the socio-economic needs of their communities, which raises a broader point: any strategy is doomed to fail if it does not address the underlying causes of health inequality.

There are huge ethnic disparities in women’s health outcomes. For example, Black women are more than three times more likely to die during or in the first year after pregnancy than white women – and areas with a high ethnic minority population need to be better-served by women’s health hubs. Health funding needs to be allocated according to the needs of the region and population; services must be equally accessible to all backgrounds.

This can only happen with a cross-governmental approach, addressing health inequalities and social determinants of health through local government and the voluntary sector, and adding women’s health education to the curriculum.
None of this is about injecting new money; in fact, if we get this right, the NHS will save billions, and our Treasury will earn billions because the positive impact of an effective women’s strategy would go far beyond the savings to the health service. 

The NHS Confederation’s Women’s health economics report found that for every additional £1 invested in obstetrics and gynaecology services per woman in England, there is an estimated ROI of £11. The report emphasised that the economic cost of absenteeism due to severe period pain and heavy periods alongside endometriosis, fibroids and ovarian cysts is estimated to be nearly £11bn per annum.
The government’s growth agenda will only succeed if we tackle the root causes of absenteeism. Delivering high-quality health and social care services for 51 per cent of the population will pay dividends. The prize is a healthier workforce and a healthier economy. 

Related

The Secret Social Worker: 'It Feels Relentless And The Gaps Are Just Too Big For Us To Fill'

By The Secret Social Worker

13 Mar