Build vs. Partner: What Health Systems Should Consider Before Launching a Women’s Heart Health Program
Health systems across the country are facing the same fundamental challenge: too many patients and not enough capacity.
Backlogs are growing. New patient appointments stretch months out. Clinicians are stretched thin. Recruiting additional providers can take 18 to 24 months, and even then, expanding headcount alone rarely solves the structural constraints inside the system.
Against this backdrop, many health systems are asking a broader question: How do we expand access without compromising quality or burning out our teams?
For many organizations, women’s cardiovascular health has become the starting point for answering that question.
Not because it is the only area with unmet need. But because it reveals, in sharp focus, the access, expertise and scalability challenges that exist across the system.
What problem are health systems actually trying to solve?
When health systems talk about standing up a women’s heart health program, the underlying problem is rarely just women’s heart disease. It’s a capacity problem
Demand for cardiovascular care far outpaces supply. Patients wait months for initial consults and follow-ups. Hiring more clinicians is slow and expensive. Meanwhile, patients who cannot access timely care often seek it elsewhere, driving leakage to competing systems.
Women’s heart health programs are often proposed as a solution. But the real issue at stake is broader: it’s about access, experience, and scalability.
Are these challenges unique to women’s cardiovascular care?
No. They’re systemic.
Every specialty in U.S. healthcare is grappling with workforce shortages and operational pressure. However, women’s cardiovascular care carries an additional layer: an expertise gap.
Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death among women in the United States (CDC; AHA Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics). Yet much of cardiovascular medicine, and the current cardiology workforce, has historically centered male presentations.
Risk factors, symptom patterns, and disease trajectories differ across women’s life stages, including pregnancy, postpartum, perimenopause, and menopause. Training has not consistently kept pace with that reality (see Circulation reviews on sex differences in cardiovascular disease).
That gap creates both clinical risk and a significant opportunity for systems to differentiate.
Why do so many systems start with women’s heart health?
Simple: because women are decision-makers.
Women often serve as the healthcare navigators for their families. When a health system earns the trust of a woman through a high-quality, specialized experience, it frequently earns loyalty across her household.
Women’s heart health also aligns naturally with broader women’s health initiatives that many systems are already prioritizing.
In other words, it’s not a niche program. It’s a strategic entry point.
Why women’s cardiovascular health is a strong test population
Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death among women in the U.S., yet access to specialized, women-centered care remains limited (American Heart Association, CDC).
At the same time, women’s health has shown a strong response to community-based and peer-supported care models. Research on shared medical visits has consistently shown improvements in patient engagement, satisfaction, and in some cases clinical outcomes, particularly for chronic disease management (JAMA; Annals of Family Medicine).
In same-gender settings, patients frequently report feeling more comfortable sharing experiences and asking questions.
This combination of a high unmet need and high receptivity makes women’s cardiovascular health an ideal proving ground for new care delivery models.
Where do women’s heart health programs break down?
When programs struggle, the failure point is rarely clinical. It’s operational.
Group-based care, in particular, is deceptively complex. Health systems often struggle with:
- Coordinating schedules and matching patients into appropriate groups
- Training providers to facilitate group visits effectively
- Building reliable enrollment pipelines when access is already constrained
Without dedicated infrastructure and clear playbooks, even well-intentioned programs stall before reaching meaningful scale.
Common assumptions that don’t hold up:
Two assumptions come up repeatedly.
First, many systems assume patients will be skeptical of group care. In practice, once patients experience it– especially women in shared life stages– engagement and satisfaction are often higher than with traditional one-on-one visits.
Second, systems often assume they can replicate group care internally with minimal adaptation. In reality, delivering group care consistently and at scale requires purpose-built workflows, tooling, and operational expertise.
The care model matters more than the condition
The challenge is overwhelmingly about the care model.
Women’s cardiovascular health is the mission. Group-based care is the engine.
And that engine is not condition-specific.
Once a system learns how to design, enroll, facilitate, and scale group-based care, the model can extend to other chronic conditions that face similar access constraints.
What happens when systems get the model right?
When group care is implemented well, it expands capacity across the system.
Lower-acuity patients can be supported effectively in group settings, freeing cardiology and primary care teams to focus on higher-complexity cases sooner. Clinicians experience more sustainable workloads. Patients build stronger relationships with care teams and peers.
Over time, this translates into
- Improved access
- Reduced leakage
- Higher patient loyalty
- More resilient operations
Build vs. partner: the honest trade-offs
Many systems ask whether they should build a women’s heart health program internally. The most important thing leaders can do in that decision is be honest about time, cost, and organizational friction.
Internal builds often require years of planning, staffing, training, and budget approvals before a single patient is served. In contrast, partnering with a plug-and-play model allows systems to move from concept to care delivery in months, without adding headcount or creating new internal budget lines.
With models like Systole’s, programs can be budget-neutral, generate modest revenue, and immediately relieve pressure on existing teams by supporting lower-complexity care outside traditional clinic visits.
Patients care about access, experience and results– not who built the program.
A mindset shift for leaders
Women’s heart health should not be viewed as a narrow specialty initiative.
It is a strategic entry point to solve system-wide access challenges.
When health systems invest in women’s cardiovascular care, they are not only addressing the leading cause of death among women. They are building loyalty, expanding capacity, and testing scalable care models that can extend across chronic conditions.
Women are often the gateway to family care. Investing in their health strengthens trust across generations.
That is not just good medicine. It’s good strategy.
References
- American Heart Association. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics.
- Circulation. Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Disease.
- JAMA. Group Visits for Chronic Illness Care.
- Annals of Family Medicine. Outcomes of Shared Medical Appointments.
- CDC. Women and Heart Disease.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a women’s heart health program?
A women’s heart health program is a care model designed to address cardiovascular risk, prevention, and management in women, accounting for differences in symptoms, risk factors, and life stages such as pregnancy and menopause.
Why are health systems launching women’s cardiovascular programs now?
Health systems face growing demand, long wait times, and workforce constraints. Women’s cardiovascular health often serves as a strategic entry point to address broader access and capacity challenges.
Should health systems build women’s heart health programs internally or partner?
Building internally can take years due to staffing, training, and operational complexity. Partnering allows systems to move faster, test scalable care models, and deliver outcomes without significant internal lift.
Is women’s heart health a niche focus or a foundation for broader care models?
Women’s cardiovascular health is often a starting point. The care models developed, particularly group-based care, can extend to many chronic conditions with similar access and engagement needs.