A $2.5 billion pledge makes women's health a priority in Gates Foundation spend-down
Those are just two potential breakthroughs out of more than 40 the Gates Foundation intends to support through a five-year, $2.5 billion commitment on women's health research and development, more than triple the amount it has spent on women's health innovation over the past five years.
'Many of the most pressing conditions impacting women still remain understudied, underdiagnosed, and overlooked,' said Ru-fong Joanne Cheng, director of Women's Health Innovations at Gates.
A very small share of medical research funding supports the study of health specific to women, including gynecological and menstrual health, obstetric care, contraceptive innovation, sexually transmitted infections, and maternal health and nutrition, the foundation said. It cited a 2021 McKinsey and Company study that found 1% of all medical research, setting aside cancer research, goes toward women's health.
The foundation framed the commitment as part of its May announcement that it would spend down its assets over the next 20 years and concentrate much of its support on global health. While much of the research funded over the next five years will benefit women worldwide, the foundation said, the need is most acute in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia.
By devoting billions to women's health, the foundation has signaled it intends to continue to invest in the cause following the 2024 departure of Melinda French Gates, who led the foundation's support of girls' and women's health. Since her divorce from Bill Gates, French Gates has committed more than $1 billion to improve women's physical and mental health, provide more economic opportunity to women, and increase their political sway.
The announcement follows a U.S. pullback of support for global maternal health programs during the first seven months of the Trump administration.
The shuttering of the U.S. Agency for International Development and program reductions at the Centers for Disease Control have sunset programs focused on women's health. According to a March internal USAID memo, the agency's closure will stop services for 16.8 million pregnant women annually.
In April, the World Health Organization said that the 40 percent decline in maternal deaths from 2000 to 2023 has been put at risk because of aid cuts.
'We need both innovation and delivery'
While the foundation continues to focus on the delivery of health care globally in an era of governmental retreat, the $2.5 billion will focus squarely on research needed to save lives, Anita Zaidi, president of Gates's Gender Equality Division, said on a press call Monday to discuss the announcement.
'This is an innovation-focused announcement,' she said. 'We need both innovation and delivery.'
It's important to remember that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has only been required to test novel drugs on women in clinical trials since 1993, and many tests are still only done on men, said Katy Brodsky Falco, founder of the Foundation for Women's Health, which plans to make $5 million in research grants this year.
With Gates getting behind research and development of women's health with such a large commitment, others may follow, Brodsky Falco said.
'Hopefully it will bring the issue to the top of the conversation among private donors and family foundations, even if they otherwise haven't supported this type of work,' she said.
Moses Obimbo Madadi, professor at the University of Nairobi, noted that postpartum hemorrhaging causes about 3,000 deaths annually in Kenya. If men were the victims, he said, a G7 conference would be called to find a solution, but research on the subject has largely been ignored because it claims the lives of women.
'We've treated this as a peripheral issue other than making it a centerpiece of our research,' he said, calling the Gates commitment a 'very good starting point.'
_____
Alex Daniels is a senior reporter at the Chronicle of Philanthropy, where you can read the full article. This article was provided to The Associated Press by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as part of a partnership to cover philanthropy and nonprofits supported by the Lilly Endowment. The Chronicle is solely responsible for the content. For all of AP's philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
US senators Wyden and Warren launch investigation into UnitedHealth over alleged nursing home payments
Aug 7 (Reuters) - Senators Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren are launching an investigation into UnitedHealth Group (UNH.N), opens new tab related to allegations that the healthcare conglomerate secretly paid nursing homes thousands in bonuses to help slash hospital transfers for ailing residents. In a letter dated August 6 to UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley, the senators called on the company to provide detailed information about its reported incentive programming and its impact on residents. The senators have sought responses by September 8. In May, the UK's Guardian newspaper reported the company made secret payments to nursing homes, as part of a series of cost-cutting tactics, that saved the company millions, but at times risked residents' health, citing an investigation carried out by the newspaper. At that time, UnitedHealth had said the U.S. Department of Justice had investigated those allegations, interviewed witnesses, and obtained thousands of documents that demonstrated the significant factual inaccuracies in the allegations.
Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
Struggling US healthcare stocks endure rough 2025 but draw some bargain hunters
NEW YORK, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Woes for U.S. healthcare stocks have worsened this year driven partly by Trump administration policies, although some investors are betting that the beaten-down shares are now becoming too much of a bargain to pass up. The S&P 500 healthcare sector (.SPXHC), opens new tab -- which includes pharmaceutical companies, biotechs, health insurers and medical equipment makers -- has slumped 5% in 2025, lagging the over 7% gain for the overall index (.SPX), opens new tab. Pressure to bring down U.S. prescription drug prices to overseas rates, tariffs targeted at pharmaceuticals and cuts to areas such as health research funding and Medicaid are among the Trump administration actions clouding the outlook for the shares this year, investors said. Regulatory obstacles are compounding issues, including expiring drug patents and setbacks for bellwethers including UnitedHealth Group (UNH.N), opens new tab. "You have got this constant overarching political and regulatory overhang that doesn't really seem to subside with any administration," said Jared Holz, healthcare sector strategist at Mizuho Securities. "When you have so much nebulousness around the sector, it turns people off rather than invites them to the party." In another sign of the group losing favor, healthcare exchange-traded-funds have seen 12 consecutive months of net outflows as of July for a total outflow of $11.5 billion in that time, more than for any other sector, according to State Street Investment Management. The performance picture is even dimmer over a longer period. While shares of massive technology companies pushed the benchmark S&P 500 up over 50% the past three years, the healthcare sector is little changed in that time. That gap has put the 60-stock sector at nearly its biggest discount to the broader market in 30 years, which some investors hope is an inflection point for the battered group. "The valuation is extremely cheap and the relative performance is at an extreme," said Walter Todd, chief investment officer at Greenwood Capital, whose healthcare holdings include diversified giant Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N), opens new tab and medical device maker Stryker (SYK.N), opens new tab. "So at this point, it seems like a pretty decent setup to get some outperformance." The price-to-earnings ratio for the healthcare sector, based on earnings estimates for the next year, has fallen to 16.2 times from nearly 20 a year ago, according to LSEG Datastream. Meanwhile, the S&P 500's rally to records has driven the index's P/E ratio to over 22 times -- giving the broader market a significant premium over the healthcare sector. Some high-profile healthcare names are at even cheaper valuations. For example, Merck (MRK.N), opens new tab is trading at a forward P/E of 8.7, against its long-term average of 14.5, while fellow drugmaker Bristol Myers Squibb (BMY.N), opens new tab trades at 7.4 against its average of 15.8, according to LSEG. Year-to-date, shares of both Merck and Bristol Myers are down roughly 20%. The group is drawing bets from some value investors such as Patrick Kaser, portfolio manager at Brandywine Global, whose portfolio is overweight the sector including owning shares of CVS Health (CVS.N), opens new tab and European drugmakers GSK (GSK.L), opens new tab and Sanofi ( opens new tab. "Our perspective is a lot of this bad news is priced in and then some," Kaser said. "To bet against the sector from here, you're essentially continuing to bet on the valuation gap, which is already large, continuing to widen." The group's decline means the total market value of the S&P 500 healthcare sector is about $4.8 trillion, not much higher than the $4.3 trillion value of Nvidia (NVDA.O), opens new tab, the semiconductor company that has symbolized the artificial intelligence boom. Indeed, some investors said a shift in capital away from Nvidia and other massive tech companies could spark healthcare shares. Such a move appeared to occur in the first quarter, investors said, when the healthcare sector rose 6% while declines in tech and megacap stocks dragged indexes lower. Fears of an economic downturn also could help healthcare shares, at least on a relative basis. The group is often viewed as a defensive area in rockier economic times. Economic fears flared following last Friday's weaker-than-expected employment report, while some strategists say the market could be due for a pullback after surging over 20% since its April lows. "During the first quarter, healthcare did great even as tech rolled over, as the fears of an economic slowdown got to more economically sensitive stocks," said Chris Grisanti, chief market strategist at MAI Capital Management, adding he expects healthcare "will perform better in a more difficult market." More clarity on regulatory issues, including tariffs, also could support healthcare, investors said. But some value investors are hesitant to dive into the group. Michael Mullaney, director of global markets research at Boston Partners, said he is wary some healthcare shares could be "value traps," preferring to overweight areas including industrials or financials. "There's been just so much of an overhang in the sector," Mullaney said. "There are better places to go with cleaner stories."
Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
Focus: Trump, pharma industry discuss boosting medicine spending abroad to cut US prices, sources say
NEW YORK, Aug 7 (Reuters) - The Trump administration has been talking to drugmakers about ways to raise prices of medicines in Europe and elsewhere in order to cut drug costs in the United States, according to a White House official and three pharmaceutical industry sources. U.S. officials told drug companies it would support their international negotiations with governments if they adopt "most favored nation" pricing under which U.S. drug costs match the lower rates offered to other wealthy countries, the White House official said. The U.S. is currently negotiating bilateral trade deals and setting tariff rates on the sector. The Trump administration has asked some companies for ideas on raising prices abroad, two of the sources said, describing multiple meetings over several months aimed at lowering U.S. prices without triggering cuts to research and development spending drugmakers insist would result. The White House official called the effort collaborative, saying both sides were seeking advice from each other. The U.S. pays more for prescription drugs than any other country, often nearly three times as much as other developed nations. President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he wants to narrow this gap to stop Americans from being "ripped off." The previously unreported discussions reflect the challenges Trump faces to achieve that goal, and are the backdrop to the letters he sent last week to CEOs of 17 major drugmakers, urging them to cut U.S. prices to match those paid overseas. Unlike in the U.S., where market forces determine drug prices, European governments typically negotiate directly with companies to set prices for their national healthcare systems. Anna Kaltenboeck, a health economist at Verdant Research, said European nations have leverage to drive pricing and are sometimes willing to walk away from purchasing medicines they deem too expensive. Drugmakers generate most of their sales in the U.S. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America - the industry's main lobby group - has always argued that cutting U.S. prices would stifle innovation by lowering R&D spending. PhRMA declined to comment on the private meetings. Kaltenboeck said past studies had shown that drugmakers made enough money in the U.S. to more than fund their entire global R&D spends. "Prices can come down in the United States without being increased in other countries, and we can still get innovation," she said. Despite the Trump administration's tariff threats and pressure to move more manufacturing to the U.S., the push to raise European drug prices is its top priority in discussions with industry, according to a senior executive at a European drugmaker, who spoke on condition of anonymity about the confidential meetings. "This is the key conversation right now with PhRMA and every company getting that message from Pennsylvania Avenue to a point that we are already executing on it," the executive said, referring to the White House address. The company had already met with European governments on the issue, the executive added. An E.U. Commission spokesperson said it is in regular contact with the pharma industry and pointed to an agreement with the U.S. that should it impose tariffs on pharmaceuticals, they would be capped at 15%. When asked how the administration would support international drug price negotiations, the White House official referred Reuters to Trump's most favored nation executive order from May. That order directed trade officials to pursue trade and legal action against countries keeping drug prices below fair market value. In last week's letters, Trump complained that since the May executive order, most industry proposals had simply shifted blame for high prices or requested policy changes that would result in billions in industry handouts. A second source, a pharmaceutical executive who was not authorized to speak on the matter, said the Trump administration has been continually meeting with representatives of his company and had discussed strategies for raising drug prices internationally. "There's a big push from the administration to drive up prices outside the U.S.," the executive said. The executive said the Trump administration had been looking at using trade talks with the UK and EU as leverage, and considered pressuring countries to spend a higher percentage of GDP on new medicines or offering tariff breaks in exchange for higher drug spending. It was understood that the UK deal specifically aims to get the country to ramp up investment in branded medicines over time, the executive said. A spokesperson for the UK government said it would continue to work closely with the U.S. and its own pharmaceutical industry to understand the possible impact of any changes to drug pricing, without commenting on the trade talks. In April, over 30 industry CEOs including those from AstraZeneca (AZN.L), opens new tab, Bayer ( opens new tab and Novo Nordisk ( opens new tab signed a letter to European Union President Ursula von der Leyen saying Europe needed to rethink its pricing policies. "It's going to be very difficult for a country that already has the ability to control what it spends to go in the other direction," Kaltenboeck said, "and it doesn't make much sense for them politically."
