An Intelligence Brief · KCED Foundation

There is a room every woman walks into eventually. She may not think of it as a room. It doesn't announce itself. It is only the place where her body changes — after a birth, in her forties, in her seventies — and where she goes looking for someone who knows what to do, and finds that nobody is there.

I want to be careful here, because it would be easy to write this as a story about a country that couldn't afford better. That isn't what this is. The United States spends more on health care than any other country, and yet some of the most consequential stretches of a woman's life remain remarkably underbuilt.

In 2024, 649 women in this country died of maternal causes — 17.9 for every 100,000 live births, a rate federal statisticians reported as not significantly lower than the 18.6 of the year before. For Black non-Hispanic women the rate was 44.8. For white non-Hispanic women it was 14.2.

When maternal mortality review committees in thirty-six states examined pregnancy-related deaths from 2017 through 2019, they found more than eighty percent were preventable.

Preventable. I keep stopping on that word.

There is a second number in that same federal report that gets less attention. The maternal mortality rate for women forty and older was 62.3, roughly five times the rate for women under twenty-five. Even inside the part of women's health the country pays the most attention to, risk climbs sharply with age.

Move ahead twenty years in the same woman's life and the shape of the problem repeats. The Women's Health Initiative, launched in the 1990s, remains the largest study ever built around women's health — created in part to answer questions medicine had spent decades failing to ask. Three decades later, menopause care is still delivered largely outside any coherent system. Training remains inconsistent. Expertise is uneven. Women bring symptoms to doctors and too often leave without useful answers.

The demand is not absent.

What is absent is the design.

You could assume nobody noticed.

Plenty of people noticed.

For decades, medical research treated the male body as its default. In 1993, Congress passed the NIH Revitalization Act, requiring the inclusion of women and minorities in NIH-funded clinical research and directing analysis of differences where appropriate.

That was a correction, and it was overdue.

The corrections since have come from as high up as they get. In November 2023, the White House Initiative on Women's Health Research was established. In March 2024, President Biden signed an executive order directing federal agencies to strengthen research on women's health, alongside a $100 million ARPA-H Sprint for Women's Health and $200 million directed within NIH for fiscal year 2025. In that year's State of the Union, he asked Congress for $12 billion to create a dedicated research fund and a national network of centers.

The distinction matters: requested is not appropriated. The $12 billion did not become standing federal infrastructure. What followed instead was something familiar to anyone who has worked near public health funding — initiatives, agency commitments, appropriations decisions, and another budget cycle.

Then came a particularly revealing moment.

On April 21, 2025, Women's Health Initiative investigators were told that federal contracts supporting the study's four regional centers would terminate that September, as part of across-the-board contract reductions. Data collection on more than forty thousand still-enrolled participants would have stopped. Days later, after the decision became public, HHS said the funding would be restored, with a spokesperson explaining that NIH had exceeded its own internal targets for cuts. Researchers spent weeks afterward waiting for written confirmation.

The study survived.

But a thing that can be cut in an afternoon after thirty years of building is not infrastructure.

It is a favor being renewed.

The legislative record shows a related pattern from another direction. On March 18, 2026, Representatives Lauren Underwood and Alma Adams reintroduced the Momnibus in the House, a package of fourteen bills addressing every identified driver of maternal mortality and morbidity; Senator Cory Booker followed in the Senate that August. Together the two versions have drawn more than two hundred sponsors. Individual components and related measures have moved separately over the years — the Protecting Moms Who Served Act became law in 2021 — but the full package has not.

That record is worth reading carefully.

This is not evidence that nobody cares. It is evidence that caring and building are different things.

Maternal health has received attention across administrations, legislatures, agencies, health systems, universities and philanthropy. Programs are created. Funding appears. Some survives. Some disappears. Then the issue returns under another initiative, another appropriation, another name.

The belief survives while the structure underneath it remains vulnerable.

What is missing isn't conviction. It is something that continues to work when conviction is between budget cycles.

Part of why the problem remains difficult to build around is that we still do not measure all of it well.

About one in eight women with a recent live birth report symptoms of postpartum depression. Screening has improved, but missed diagnosis and untreated illness remain substantial problems.

And what is difficult to measure in care becomes harder still once women's health turns into an industry.

This is the part I would want any agency, health system or investor to sit with. The industry cannot agree on the size of itself.

Published estimates of the femtech market for 2026 range from roughly $11 billion to $73 billion. The disagreement is not arithmetic. Different analysts are counting different things, because the boundary itself is unstable.

Where does women's health technology end? Where does digital health begin? Does fertility belong beside oncology? Does menopause care belong beside longevity? When does a consumer wellness product become a health technology, and what standard of evidence should separate the two?

Those are not semantic questions. They determine what gets counted. And what gets counted determines what can be compared.

A sector without a settled boundary is difficult to measure. A sector that cannot be measured consistently is difficult to benchmark. And companies that cannot be benchmarked consistently are more vulnerable to being financed, promoted or dismissed on narrative rather than comparable evidence.

Capital has entered women's health. But capital tends to travel where the road is already legible.

The money showed up.

It just went where the road already was.

I don't want to leave it there, because the more interesting fact about women's health is that this may still be an early market disguised as an established one.

Start with what people actually want. We are living longer. But living longer and living well are not the same thing.

In December 2024, researchers at Mayo Clinic published an analysis in JAMA Network Open covering 183 World Health Organization member states. Globally, the average gap between lifespan and healthspan — years lived versus years lived in good health — had widened to 9.6 years. For women, that gap ran 2.4 years wider than for men, associated with a heavier burden of noncommunicable disease. The largest national gap in the study belonged to the United States, at 12.4 years.

That reframes the category.

Women's health is not a reproductive subspecialty that happens to have a large addressable market. It is a lifespan problem. And some of its most underbuilt years arrive long after childbirth.

The demographics point the same way. More women are entering and living for decades beyond menopause than at any previous point in history. For many, those years will represent close to a third of their lives. That third was not designed for.

I also want to say something that usually gets treated as unserious.

Women want to still feel like themselves as they age. They want to function well. Think clearly. Sleep. Move. Work. Remain intimate. Recognize themselves in the mirror. They want to look well, too.

That last part is often dismissed as vanity, and I think that is a mistake. Wanting to grow older without becoming estranged from your own body is not frivolous.

But the distinction matters precisely because this is where the category begins to blur. Clinical women's health, healthy aging, longevity medicine and consumer beauty are not the same thing. They carry different risks and require different standards of evidence.

A serum is not a therapy. A wellness claim is not a clinical outcome.

Recognizing dignity, sexuality, function, appearance and quality of life as legitimate dimensions of aging does not require treating cosmetics as medicine. A serious women's health market needs to hold both ideas at once.

One more thing has changed, and it is not biological. The person making the decision has changed. Women increasingly lead companies, control household spending, allocate institutional budgets, invest capital and make their own health decisions. This is no longer a category waiting entirely for somebody else to authorize spending on it.

The demand is durable. But durable demand does not guarantee that capital, hospitals, clinicians or public institutions will find the right technologies.

Between demand and supply sits a harder problem. Judgment.

Infrastructure has to go somewhere, and it requires several conditions to exist in the same place at roughly the same time. In women's health, New Jersey has begun assembling them.

There is the policy. In July 2023, New Jersey enacted legislation establishing the Maternal and Infant Health Innovation Authority — a standing public authority rather than a temporary task force, which the state describes as the first of its kind in the nation. It oversees the Maternal and Infant Health Innovation Center now under construction in Trenton, which broke ground in July 2025 with $86.7 million in state and federal funding and is expected to open in 2027.

There is the data, and the willingness to publish it. New Jersey has been reviewing maternal deaths since 1932, when it became the second state in the nation to establish a review team, and has examined more than eleven hundred cases since 1999. Its most recent published review, covering 2019 through 2021, found a statewide pregnancy-related mortality ratio of 20.5 deaths per 100,000 live births — up from 14.4 in the prior cycle, an increase the committee attributes substantially to COVID-19. Among Black non-Hispanic women the ratio was 65.1, against 9.0 among white non-Hispanic women: 7.2 times higher. The committee determined that 80.3 percent of those deaths were preventable. It also recorded that discrimination contributed to eighteen percent of them.

That last finding is unusual. A state agency, in a public document, counted discrimination as a contributing factor in maternal deaths and printed the number.

There is the industry, and an intake mechanism. New Jersey remains one of the country's major concentrations of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and life-science activity. In January 2026, the Economic Development Authority approved $12.55 million across two Strategic Innovation Centers. One of them, New Baby New Jersey, will occupy five thousand square feet inside the Trenton center, focused on maternal health research, digital health, doula support, perinatal mental health and access to public benefits. Managed by Plug and Play, the program will run two cohorts a year of no fewer than twenty companies each. Twenty percent of participants must be New Jersey-based; the rest are expected to come from out of state, with support to relocate. A further $3 million is reserved for an early-stage, pre-venture maternal and infant health initiative in Trenton, to be administered by a third party.

New Jersey is not simply constructing a building. It is building a pipeline, on a schedule, with public money.

There are the health systems, universities, clinicians and institutional buyers that any technology must eventually face before adoption becomes real.

And there are the people. Bergen and Hudson counties hold deeply diverse immigrant and multilingual communities. Here language becomes a clinical variable rather than a demographic footnote, and technologies encounter populations whose health histories, cultures, access barriers, insurance circumstances and expectations of care do not fit conveniently into one sample. That is not peripheral to testing whether something works. It is part of the test.

The last condition has less to do with size. It has to do with plumbing.

New Jersey has invested in the systems that sit underneath individual programs: community doula training with Medicaid enrollment pathways, community health workers, transportation, data, and universal nurse home visiting through Family Connects NJ, now operating in seventeen counties, with statewide coverage planned for 2027.

In 2026 the Innovation Authority added the G.L.O.W. Program — Grant for Lasting Outcomes in Women's Health — a $1 million initiative that awarded fifteen community organizations $50,000 each while reserving up to $250,000 for mentorship, organizational assessment, business development support and sustainability planning through a companion academy. A quarter of the money was not money. It was capacity.

The Authority's board chair put the reasoning plainly: community-based organizations are often the first to identify solutions and the last to receive the sustained investment needed to grow them.

The distinction matters. Programs deliver services. Infrastructure builds the mechanisms — reimbursement, credentialing, organizations, data, workforce, financing, institutional relationships — that allow services to continue beyond one program.

Nothing is immune to politics or budgets. But a function distributed across providers, payers, institutions and communities is harder to dismantle than a single line item.

What matters is not whether New Jersey is the only state with these assets. It is that they already coexist here, and that they are being assembled now rather than merely proposed.

New Jersey has policy, capital, life sciences, health systems, diverse populations and an emerging maternal-health innovation infrastructure. It is also beginning to build a pipeline.

But one question remains surprisingly difficult to answer.

Which technologies are actually ready?

New Baby New Jersey will run cohorts. Companies will apply. Institutions will have to decide which ones deserve time, resources, clinical attention, partnership or further evaluation.

Those decisions will be made. In fact, judgment happens throughout the system already.

An accelerator decides whom to admit. An investor decides what fits a fund. A hospital decides what deserves evaluation. A government trade agency decides what it can support. A research firm decides what market to measure.

Each of those judgments is legitimate. But each is made for a different institutional purpose.

What remains scarce is something else: independent, published, standardized assessment that can be read across institutions.

The supply side has the same problem. Serious women's health technologies are being developed outside the United States in fertility, diagnostics, maternal health, oncology, menopause, digital health and healthy aging. Some will be scientifically strong and commercially unprepared. Some will be commercially polished and clinically thin. Some will have credible evidence but misunderstand the U.S. regulatory path. Some will have regulatory clarity but no plausible health-system buyer. Some will simply not be ready.

Today those distinctions are discovered privately and repeatedly. One institution performs diligence. Then another begins again.

The result is not an absence of judgment. It is fragmented judgment.

Government trade agencies promote companies because that is their mandate. Accelerators build programs around companies they admit. Investors evaluate opportunities against their theses. Hospitals evaluate technologies against their own needs. Research firms measure markets.

Independent evaluators do exist. The Peterson Health Technology Institute publishes assessments of digital health products already in the U.S. market, and in April 2026 announced one on virtual maternity care. ICER evaluates the clinical and economic value of drugs and other treatments. That work is serious, and it is not this.

As far as we can find, no one publishes a standardized readiness assessment of women's health companies still outside the U.S. market — one that an accelerator, a hospital and an investor can each pick up and interrogate.

That is the missing layer.

This publication is an attempt to build that layer, in the place where it has the best chance of holding.

Each issue will examine individual women's health companies seeking entry into the U.S. market across five areas:

The assessment is of readiness. That distinction is important.

It is not an endorsement. It is not an investment recommendation. It is not a prediction that a technology will succeed clinically, commercially or regulatorily.

It is a structured account of where a company stands against a published standard, what evidence supports that conclusion, and where material questions remain.

Companies are not charged for inclusion. Inclusion cannot be bought. Sponsorship cannot determine selection, findings or conclusions. Relevant conflicts are disclosed and reviewers recuse where appropriate. Methodology is published. Companies may challenge factual inaccuracies through a documented process, but they do not control the analysis. Material corrections are recorded.

An unfavorable finding is information, not a failure of manners.

I am aware how severe those rules can sound. They are not editorial decoration. Without them, this document is worth nothing to anybody.

The reasoning is borrowed from this state's own history, and it fits in a line.

First someone counted. Then someone built.

That order has too often been reversed in women's health. There has been no shortage of belief, innovation, capital, policy or announcements. There has been a shortage of measurement that institutions can share.

The room is empty.

That has been established, repeatedly, by people with far more resources than a newsroom.

The open question is who intends to furnish it — and whether the furnishing begins with an accounting or with another announcement.

We're starting with the accounting.

한국어

여자라면 언젠가 한 번은 들어가게 되는 방이 있다. 방이라고 부르지도 않는다. 아이를 낳은 뒤, 마흔이 넘어서, 일흔이 되어서. 몸이 바뀌는 그 자리다. 뭘 어떻게 해야 하는지 아는 사람을 찾아 들어가는데, 아무도 없다.

이 나라가 돈이 없어서 그런 게 아니다. 미국은 세계에서 의료비를 가장 많이 쓰는 나라다. 그런데도 여자의 인생에서 가장 중요한 구간들이 이상할 만큼 비어 있다.

숫자부터 보자. 2024년 미국에서 649명의 여성이 임신·출산과 관련된 원인으로 숨졌다. 출생 10만 건당 17.9명이다. 연방 통계 당국은 전년도 18.6명보다 의미 있게 줄었다고 보기 어렵다고 했다. 흑인 여성은 44.8명, 백인 여성은 14.2명. 40세 이상은 62.3명으로 25세 미만의 다섯 배 가까이 된다.

2017년부터 2019년까지 36개 주의 검토위원회가 임신 관련 사망을 들여다봤다. 80%가 넘는 죽음이 막을 수 있었던 것이었다.

막을 수 있었다. 나는 이 말에서 자꾸 멈춘다.

출산만의 이야기도 아니다. 20년 뒤 같은 여자는 갱년기라는 또 다른 방 앞에 선다. 1990년대에 시작된 Women's Health Initiative는 지금도 여성 건강을 중심에 둔 가장 큰 연구다. 그런데 30년이 지나도 갱년기 진료는 체계 밖에 있다. 의사마다 아는 게 다르고, 증상을 들고 갔다가 답 없이 돌아오는 여자가 많다.

필요가 없는 게 아니다. 설계가 없는 거다.

아무도 몰랐던 게 아니다. 1993년 의회는 NIH 연구에 여성을 포함하도록 법을 만들었다. 2023년 11월 백악관에 여성건강연구 이니셔티브가 생겼고, 2024년 3월 바이든 대통령은 행정명령에 서명했다. ARPA-H의 1억 달러, NIH의 2억 달러(2025 회계연도)가 따라왔다. 그해 국정연설에서는 120억 달러를 의회에 요청했다.

요청은 예산이 아니다. 120억 달러는 상설 인프라가 되지 못했다.

2025년 4월 21일. WHI 연구진은 지역센터 네 곳의 연방 계약이 그해 9월에 끝난다는 통보를 받았다. 아직 참여하고 있는 4만 명이 넘는 여성의 데이터 수집이 멈출 상황이었다. 며칠 뒤 HHS는 자금을 되살리겠다고 했다. NIH가 내부 삭감 목표를 넘어섰다는 설명이었다.

연구는 살아남았다. 그런데 30년을 쌓은 것이 한나절 만에 잘릴 수 있다면, 그건 인프라가 아니다. 해마다 갱신되는 호의다.

모성 건강 종합법안 Momnibus도 마찬가지다. 2026년 3월 하원에서, 8월 상원에서 다시 발의됐고 공동발의자가 200명이 넘는다. Protecting Moms Who Served Act처럼 2021년에 따로 법이 된 조각도 있지만, 묶음 전체는 아직이다.

아무도 관심이 없어서가 아니다. 관심을 갖는 것과 짓는 것은 다른 일이라는 증거다.

최근 출산한 여성 8명 중 1명이 산후우울 증상을 보고한다. 선별검사는 늘었지만 놓치는 진단과 치료받지 못하는 경우는 여전히 많다.

이걸 산업으로 보면 더 흐려진다. 2026년 펨테크 시장 규모 추정치는 110억 달러에서 730억 달러까지 벌어져 있다. 계산이 틀린 게 아니다. 무엇을 세느냐가 다른 거다. 경계가 정해지지 않은 시장은 비교할 수 없고, 비교할 수 없는 회사는 증거가 아니라 이야기로 투자를 받거나 버려진다.

돈은 들어왔다. 길이 이미 나 있는 곳으로만.

2024년 12월 메이요 클리닉 연구진이 JAMA Network Open에 발표한 분석이 있다. 183개국에서 수명과 건강수명의 차이는 평균 9.6년. 여성은 남성보다 그 차이가 2.4년 더 길었다. 그리고 그 차이가 가장 큰 나라가 미국, 12.4년이다.

여성 건강은 출산 분야가 아니다. 평생의 문제다. 가장 비어 있는 시간은 아이를 낳고 한참 뒤에 온다.

나이가 들어도 나 자신이고 싶은 마음이 있다. 잘 자고, 맑게 생각하고, 일하고, 거울 속 나를 알아보고 싶은 마음. 그걸 허영이라고 부르는 건 틀렸다. 다만 세럼은 치료가 아니고, 웰니스 주장은 임상 결과가 아니다. 둘 다 진지하게 다루려면 그 선부터 분명히 그어야 한다.

결정하는 사람도 바뀌었다. 여자들이 회사를 이끌고, 집안 지출을 정하고, 기관 예산을 짜고, 투자하고, 자기 건강을 스스로 결정한다. 수요는 오래 간다. 문제는 수요와 공급 사이에 있는 판단이다.

뉴저지는 그 조건들을 한자리에 모으고 있다.

2023년 7월 주정부는 모자건강혁신청(MIHIA)을 세웠다. 임시 태스크포스가 아니라 상설 기관이고, 주정부 스스로 전국 최초라고 부른다. 트렌턴에서는 8,670만 달러를 들인 모자건강혁신센터가 2025년 7월 착공했고 2027년 문을 열 예정이다.

뉴저지는 1932년, 미국에서 두 번째로 모성사망 검토를 시작한 주다. 가장 최근 보고서(2019~2021년)에서 임신 관련 사망비는 출생 10만 건당 20.5명이었다. 흑인 여성 65.1명, 백인 여성 9.0명, 7.2배다. 80.3%는 막을 수 있었다. 그리고 18%에서 차별이 원인 중 하나였다고 주정부가 공식 문서에 적었다. 그 숫자를 인쇄했다는 것 자체가 드문 일이다.

2026년 1월 경제개발청은 New Baby New Jersey를 승인했다. 센터 안 5천 스퀘어피트 공간에서 Plug and Play가 운영하고, 1년에 두 번, 기수마다 20개 이상의 회사를 받는다. 20%는 뉴저지 기업이고 나머지는 다른 주에서 옮겨올 수 있다. 건물이 아니라 파이프라인을 짓고 있는 거다.

그리고 사람이 있다. 버겐과 허드슨에는 다양한 이민자, 다언어 커뮤니티가 산다. 여기서 언어는 인구 통계의 각주가 아니라 임상 변수다. 기술이 정말 작동하는지 시험하려면 바로 이런 곳이 필요하다.

마지막은 눈에 잘 안 띄는 배관 같은 것들이다. 둘라 교육과 메디케이드 청구 경로, 지역 보건 인력, 그리고 출산한 가정에 간호사가 찾아가는 Family Connects NJ. 이 프로그램은 지금 17개 카운티에서 돌아가고 2027년 전 지역 확대가 예정돼 있다. 올해 MIHIA는 100만 달러 규모의 G.L.O.W. 프로그램으로 지역 단체 15곳에 5만 달러씩 주고, 25만 달러는 멘토링과 역량 강화에 따로 떼어놨다. 돈의 4분의 1이 돈이 아니라 역량이었다.

프로그램은 서비스를 한다. 인프라는 프로그램이 끝나도 서비스가 계속되게 만든다.

그래도 답하기 어려운 질문이 남는다. 어떤 기술이 정말 준비가 됐나?

액셀러레이터도, 투자자도, 병원도, 정부 기관도 판단은 한다. 각자 자기 목적으로. 독립적인 평가 기관도 있다. Peterson Health Technology Institute는 이미 미국 시장에 나와 있는 디지털헬스 제품을 평가하고, 올해 4월에는 가상 산모 진료에 대한 평가 계획을 발표했다. ICER는 약과 치료의 가치를 따진다. 진지한 일이다. 하지만 이것과는 다르다.

우리가 찾아본 바로는, 아직 미국 밖에 있는 여성 건강 기업의 준비도를 표준화해서 공개하는 곳은 없다. 액셀러레이터와 병원과 투자자가 같은 문서를 놓고 따져볼 수 있는 형태로는.

그게 빠진 한 층이다.

이 브리프는 그 층을 만들어보려는 시도다. 매 호마다 미국 진출을 준비하는 여성 건강 기업을 다섯 가지로 본다. 기술과 임상 근거, 미국 규제 경로, 시장과 의료 시스템 적합성, 미국에서 실행할 팀의 역량, 그리고 생태계 준비도.

이건 추천이 아니다. 투자 권유도 아니고, 성공을 예측하는 것도 아니다. 공개된 기준에 비춰 지금 어디에 서 있는지, 무엇이 근거이고 무엇이 아직 질문인지를 적는 기록이다.

포함되는 데 돈을 받지 않는다. 돈으로 살 수도 없다. 후원이 선정이나 결론을 정하지 않는다. 이해충돌은 밝히고, 해당 검토자는 빠진다. 회사는 사실 오류에 이의를 제기할 수 있지만 분석을 통제하지는 못한다. 수정은 기록으로 남긴다.

불리한 결과는 정보다. 실례가 아니다.

규칙이 너무 엄격해 보일 수 있다는 거 안다. 그런데 이게 없으면 이 문서는 아무 가치가 없다.

뉴저지의 역사에서 배운 순서가 있다. 먼저 센다. 그다음에 짓는다.

여성 건강에서는 이 순서가 너무 자주 뒤집혔다. 믿음도, 혁신도, 돈도, 정책도, 발표도 부족하지 않았다. 부족했던 건 기관들이 함께 쓸 수 있는 측정이었다.

방은 여전히 비어 있다. 누가 그 방을 채울 건가. 또 하나의 발표로 시작할 건가, 셈으로 시작할 건가.

우리는 셈부터 시작한다.

Published by KCED Foundation, Inc., an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) public charity. Methodology and Editorial Independence Policy published separately.

Sources

CDC National Center for Health Statistics, Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2024

New Jersey Department of Health, New Jersey Maternal Mortality Report, 2019–2021

New Jersey Economic Development Authority, Board approval of Strategic Innovation Centers, January 7, 2026

New Jersey Department of Health, G.L.O.W. Program awards, July 22, 2026

New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Family Connects NJ expansion, January 28, 2026

New Jersey Maternal and Infant Health Innovation Authority, Maternal and Infant Health Innovation Center groundbreaking, July 22, 2025

Peterson Health Technology Institute, Evaluation of virtual maternity care solutions, April 7, 2026

CDC, Pregnancy-Related Deaths: Data from Maternal Mortality Review Committees in 36 States, 2017–2019

CDC, Symptoms of Depression Among Women

The White House, Fact Sheet: Executive Order to Advance Women's Health Research and Innovation, March 18, 2024

Axios, Women's Health Initiative gets reprieve from HHS cuts, April 28, 2025

Associated Press via ABC News, Trump administration promises to restore funding to landmark women's health study, April 2025

Office of Rep. Lauren Underwood, Momnibus reintroduction, March 18, 2026

Office of Sen. Cory Booker, Bicameral Momnibus Act reintroduction, August 7, 2026

Office of Rep. Lauren Underwood, Protecting Moms Who Served Act signed into law, November 2021

Garmany and Terzic, Global Healthspan-Lifespan Gaps Among 183 World Health Organization Member States, JAMA Network Open, December 2024

Global Market Insights, Femtech Market Size Report; Fortune Business Insights, Femtech Market Report

New Jersey Monitor, Governor Murphy signs bill creating maternal health authority, July 17, 2023

The Signal (TCNJ), NJMIHIA to open Trenton's Maternal and Infant Health Innovation Center in 2027, May 11, 2026

Office of the Governor of New Jersey, Governor Sherrill Signs FY 2027 Appropriations Act, June 30, 2026