Latest news with #Versi
Newsweek
24-07-2025
- Health
- Newsweek
Elektra Health Wants to Demystify Menopause, Says CEO Jannine Versi
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Women's bodies are often a mystery to even women themselves. Part of that mystery stems from the invisibility of women's health topics in the American health care industry. But this was never the case for Jannine Versi. She grew up being the eldest of three girls in a predominantly female household, so puberty, overactive bladder and menopause were simply everyday dinner table conversations. Versi carried those discussions into the creation of her own venture, Elektra Health. Co-founded in 2019 by Versi and Alessandra Henderson, the company serves as a digital health support platform for women navigating menopause. Versi's career has been multifaceted as she worked in both the public and private sectors, progressing from Wall Street to microfinance in India, from Google to Insomnia Cookies, and eventually to tech-focused health care companies Cityblock Health and Valera Health. Jannine Versi is the co-founder and CEO of Elektra Health, a women's health company. Jannine Versi is the co-founder and CEO of Elektra Health, a women's health company. Newsweek Illustration/Canva Throughout the majority of her early experiences, Versi interacted with powerful women in each of their respective spaces. She had the opportunity to collaborate with women like Google's Chief Marketing Officer Lorraine Twohill, former Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and Dr. Toyin Ajayi, co-founder and CEO of Cityblock Health. As a result, she came to believe that women in leadership positions existed everywhere. However, upon further research, she realized that not everyone grew up in the same open environment that she did, and this led her back to the dinner table conversations in her household. "Women are the engine of the health care system, yet their perspectives are often missing from the rooms where decisions get made," Versi told Newsweek. Despite being at the center of some of the most prevalent issues in the health care industry, women have historically been underrepresented in medical research. According to a study from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 4.5 million women in the U.S. experience at least one gynecologic health problem each year, and the majority are related to menstrual health. Health care payers and systems are still figuring out how to prioritize women's health, but this issue extends into a matter of public health, leading to increased disease risk, untreated symptoms and missed diagnoses. For instance, according to a 2022 report published in the American Heart Journal Plus: Cardiology Research and Practice, women have been consistently underrepresented in cardiovascular clinical trials, and cardiovascular disease is now the leading cause of death in women. Women are much less likely than men to be considered in clinical and preclinical cardiovascular research, which leads to a lack of awareness regarding how they display symptoms differently from men and how they react to treatments. The turning point for Versi was in the late 2010s. While working at Cityblock Health, she witnessed firsthand how access to social support systems could improve outcomes for Medicaid and Medicare patients. During this time, she was a member of the founding team that initiated a value-based care model, blending advanced primary care with access to social supports. Simultaneously, she was observing the pioneering work of Maven Clinic, a virtual clinic for women's and family health, and noticed that while it focused on fertility and pregnancy, it neglected to address the mid-life and later stages of women's health. "Midlife women are often dismissed, misdiagnosed or completely overlooked in our health care system—despite being at the center of their families, communities, and workplaces," Versi said. Elektra Health was founded to bridge the glaring gap in women's health care, as well as the general lack of access. Its goal is to make women feel seen and heard throughout each stage of their lives. The company offers virtual clinical care services with board-certified clinicians, education and peer support, all of which are covered by insurance. The company's website features multiple educational articles on stages including perimenopause and menopause. It also publishes a newsletter featuring up-to-date science, stories and recommendations for the modern woman seeking to learn more about maintaining her health. Additionally, various symptoms of menopause are listed, along with tips from clinicians on how to manage each one, the science behind why they occur and recommended medications. Elektra Health stands out due to its definition of success. It doesn't measure its achievements in terms of numbers or revenue but instead focuses on psychosocial impact on women. The company's goal is to understand whether women are feeling more informed, better supported and equipped to deal with changes in their health as a result of their services. "We want women to live long, as they increasingly are, but in great health," Versi said. She mentioned that Elektra Health often considers the question, "How many women are accessing care who weren't before?" As a team that primarily identifies as women, the female-founded company works to ensure it approaches the concerns of fellow women with as much urgency and empathy as possible as they experience these confusing and challenging stages of their lives. "It hasn't been easy," Versi said. "Bootstrapping a menopause company during the early days of a pandemic was brutal. We're solving invisibility and lack of access." Elektra Health is also the first menopause company to ever successfully partner up with a health plan, Mass General Brigham Health Plan, and the first and only midlife women's health company serving Medicare and Medicaid patients through its payer partnerships. Versi and her team also work with a few partner organizations that are focusing on prioritizing research on women's health. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and EmblemHealth are two examples, both led by women, of organizations actively working to bridge the gap in knowledge and access regarding women's health. Versi believes that we need more women leading the charge in health care and playing an active role in the decisions that affect their health in real time. Nevertheless, this cannot be achieved without robust systems being put in place to retain their positions in leadership and promote them to carry forward bigger and better initiatives. Creating synergy between women's health research and the resulting decisions that care providers make will help women finally feel less invisible and alone in their struggles, Versi said. "I have heard for a long time from various payers and systems that they are 'still figuring out' their women's health strategy," said Versi. "I suspect some will regret not moving more swiftly because women are increasingly and rightly expecting better from their providers and insurers. That kind of leadership sets a new standard—and hopefully, it's just the beginning." Versi will join Newsweek at this year's inaugural Women's Global Impact forum. The August 5 event, hosted at Newsweek's headquarters in New York City, will bring together some of the world's top female executives and connect them with rising stars across industries and job functions. For more information on the event, please visit the Women's Global Impact homepage.
Spectator
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Miqdaad Versi and the troubling war on ‘Islamophobia'
Readers of progressive newspapers have occasionally been invited to admire a man called Miqdaad Versi. He was the subject of a respectful 2018 profile in the Guardian for his 'personal mission to confront…the Islamophobia of the British press' one complaint at a time. Versi's 'spreadsheet of shame' showed 'how flagrantly British papers get their news about Muslims wrong'. Alas, a large number of this piece's claims about the corrections supposedly forced on shameful British newspapers by Versi were themselves wrong and had to be corrected at the bottom of the online version. That is, as it happens, a truer reflection than the Guardian intended of the organisation which Versi set up, and where he remains 'lead strategist'. So if the media is not a pit of anti-Muslim falsehood and hatred, what is the CfMM's true objective? Versi's organisation is called the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM), until this week part of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), of which he is also spokesman. It claims to specialise in challenging false, negative and 'Islamophobic' reporting by the British media about Muslims and Islam, through monitoring 'thousands of articles and broadcast clips daily' and complaining to regulators and media outlets about those which fall short. The CfMM claims that media falsehoods are 'widespread', with almost 10 per cent of news stories involving Islam 'misrepresenting Muslims, misusing terminology or misinterpreting Islamic beliefs and practice'. As Versi puts it: Sixty per cent of articles [about Muslims] analysed [by CfMM] associated negative aspects and behaviour with Muslims or Islam… Little wonder Islamophobia is so common in society. These claims have been widely repeated in politics and are widely believed in Muslim Britain. When we at Policy Exchange looked into it, however, we found that CfMM simply doesn't substantiate these serious and damaging charges. In the group's entire seven-year existence, the rulings database at Ipso, the press self-regulator, shows a grand total of one case brought by CfMM from which Ipso required a newspaper to make a correction: in December 2020, more than four years ago. In a further three cases brought by CfMM, the latest three years ago, Ipso found that a breach of its editors' code had occurred but that the newspaper had already corrected the error, with no further action required. CfMM complains directly to news outlets too. But it has made wildly varying claims about the number of articles it has monitored (from several million to several tens of thousands) and the number of successful complaints it has brought as a result (from 300 to 22.) Even taking its highest claimed number of successful complaints (300) and its lowest claimed number of articles monitored (55,500), that is about 0.5 per cent, nowhere near a tenth. In submissions to regulators and consultations, CfMM repeatedly reuses the same, or some of the same, twenty or so news stories, often many years old, as examples of inaccurate and 'Islamophobic' journalism. In the group's latest published submission, in 2023, the newest examples given were from 2020. Some old favourites had been published as long as 15 years before. Remarkably, the CfMM's '60 per cent' tally of negative stories appears to include factual accounts of Islamist terror attacks. The 'top three offenders', it says, are the wire services Reuters, AP and AFP, sources of almost entirely sober, factual and straight reporting – at the opposite end of the spectrum from the usual suspects of the right-wing tabloids. So if the media is not, as it turns out, a pit of anti-Muslim falsehood and hatred, what is the CfMM's true objective? It is, in the group's own words, 'taking control of the narrative' about Islam. It appears to be to pressurise journalists to accept a partisan view of the faith held by the MCB and its activists. CfMM tells journalists they should never use the terms 'Islamism', 'Islamic extremism' or 'Muslim extremism' at all. It attacks news outlets for describing terror groups, including Hamas and Islamic State, as Islamist. It appears to claim that moderate Muslims abandon their 'religious identities' for a 'version of Islam that has been sanctioned by the state', and that they may even be liberals or government spies. CfMM seeks to pressurise journalists into a conservative view of Islam, describing the hijab, the headscarf for women, as 'normative'. They attacked a Muslim writer, Qanta Ahmed, for 'misrepresenting Muslim behaviour and belief' after she wrote in The Spectator that there was 'no basis in Islam for the niqab', the full-face veil. CfMM has criticised TV dramas for showing Muslim characters who do not want to wear a hijab, or who drink alcohol, or who are gay. It has openly taken the side of intimidating mobs staging banned anti-gay demonstrations outside primary schools (news reporting which criticised those demos was, it says, 'Islamophobic'.) CfMM claims to support free speech. But it says that press regulators must discourage 'insults' against Islam. Nor, it says, should the media be allowed to accuse the authorities of failing to investigate wrongdoing because the perpetrators are Muslim, as in Rotherham. It describes the reporting of grooming gangs as based on 'shoddy' underpinnings, and has repeatedly attacked those, such as the late Andrew Norfolk of the Times and GB News' Charlie Peters, who have done most to expose it. How much does this matter? Potentially, quite a lot. Versi and CfMM have been welcome guests in media offices and at Ipso, claiming to be 'instrumental' in drawing up the regulator's guidance on Islam. A senior BBC News manager spoke at a CfMM event only last month, and it has been 'feeding in' to BBC policy. Major newspaper editors and celebrity reporters have endorsed some of CfMM's worst, most questionable research. CfMM organises regular workshops and training events in news organisations. It says it teaches journalism students at 'all the top universities', and actually has done so at several. And now, CfMM has a powerful new weapon in sight. It and the MCB are part of the wider campaign for an official definition of Islamophobia – something which, in the campaign's words, should be used to control and police activity 'far beyond' anything that can currently 'be captured as criminal'. This includes setting 'appropriate limits to free speech' when talking about Muslims. The government has stated its support for a definition. The man it has appointed to draw one up, Dominic Grieve, wrote a supportive foreword to the report in which these words appeared. Most investigative journalism looks at governments, public bodies and companies. But there's another set of people who need just as much scrutiny, and who can act with just as much shoddiness: the activist groups, working away behind the scenes, to skew society and the national conversation in wrong and dangerous directions.
