The Odyssey of Women’s Health: What the 2026 Midterms Mean for Care, Research, and Innovation

# Overview

A special THCB Gang discussion, hosted by Audrey Mann Cronin, gathered three women leaders—Liz Powell, Dr. Elizabeth Garner, and Dr. Mitzi Krockover—to map how the 2026 midterm elections intersect with women's health policy, research, and innovation. The conversation frames women's health as a policy battlefield that spans federal funding, regulatory decisions, insurance coverage, and private investment.

# Who spoke and why it matters

# The political context

The panel noted the narrow balance in Congress—reported as 218 Republicans (including one independent) and 212 Democrats—and emphasized that seat-by-seat outcomes and state delegations shape which health priorities reach the floor. The midterms will influence appropriations, regulatory appointments, and the appetite for federal research and coverage changes that affect women's health services.

# Persistent gaps in research and care

A concrete historical point the panel raised: women and people of color were not required to be included in clinical trials until 1993. That regulatory history created long-term blind spots in data that still affect diagnostics, dosing, and therapy development. Examples discussed included work on PCOS therapies and attention to menopausal care—areas receiving more public and legislative scrutiny in 2026.

# Policy levers under discussion

The conversation traced several policy levers that are actionable depending on election outcomes:

• Federal research funding and targeted hearings: increased funding and congressional hearings can spotlight under-researched conditions such as menopause and accelerate federal responses.
• Regulatory pathways: questions about female-dosed formulations (for example, testosterone) and hormone availability were cited as regulatory issues currently under discussion.
• Insurance coverage and access: state and federal decisions shape what treatments are covered, how care is delivered, and who can access specialized services.
• State-level experimentation: states are a testing ground for coverage models and service delivery that can inform federal approaches.

# Innovation and investment implications

Panelists argued that policy clarity and funding can spur industry investment. Gaps in data and care create market opportunities but also require regulatory and reimbursement certainty. Women-focused innovation hubs and investor groups are positioning to back companies addressing hormonal health, reproductive conditions, and lifecycle care, provided policy supports scaled deployment.

# What to watch after the midterms

• Shifts in committee control and appropriations language affecting NIH and HHS priorities.
• State legislative activity on menopause care, hormone access, and coverage mandates.
• Regulatory attention to female-dose formulations and supply-chain issues for hormone therapies.
• Private investment trends into femtech and therapeutics that hinge on clearer policy signals.

# Bottom line

The panel framed the moment as one where electoral outcomes map directly onto women's health priorities. Addressing long-standing research gaps, securing coverage, and aligning regulatory standards are concrete goals that will be easier or harder depending on who holds power at the federal and state levels. Advocacy groups organized around bipartisan outreach aim to translate election results into measurable policy changes that expand research, access, and innovation.