Analysis demonstrates financial returns shape healthcare accessibility in FemTech, highlighting socio-legal health inequities.
This article employs the assetisation framework for analysing FemTech markets, situating FemTech within the broader context of financialised capitalism. The analysis centres on European and Anglo-American FemTech companies, where assetisation processes are most prominent. It argues that the assetisation of FemTech, which involves transforming digital products, services, and software into revenue-generating assets, restructures consumer access to healthcare in ways that align with the interests of financial capital rather than with public health needs. The study critiques how FemTech markets, underpinned by assetisation, reproduce structural health inequalities, prioritising scalable, high-income consumer markets while neglecting broader healthcare needs. By drawing on feminist and socio-legal studies, the article highlights how assetisation governs FemTech markets, influencing accessibility, product development, and regulatory oversight. It argues that FemTech assetisation exacerbates health inequities by enabling mis-selling practices, limiting inclusivity for underserved consumers, and prioritising financial returns over equitable healthcare solutions. This re-conceptualisation of FemTech calls for a reorientation of feminist inquiries and socio-legal scholarship to critically examine the legal and economic mechanisms that perpetuate gendered health injustices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Asta Zokaityte (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: