About Haven

Why we're here

It takes the average woman 7 to 10 years to receive a formal endometriosis diagnosis. That time is filled with dismissed symptoms, misattributed pain, and treatments that address everything except what is actually wrong. When a diagnosis finally arrives, what follows is more frustration and uncertainty with knowing what to do next, where to turn, and how to manage life with a chronic condition that is invisible to others.

A platform that supports the community through this journey – emotionally and logistically, from pre-diagnosis to daily life after diagnosis – doesn't yet exist. That's what Haven is building: something to make some of the hard parts that follow a little easier, and the uncertain more certain.

Transparency as a core pillar

We believe that trust comes by being specific about the limitations of what we can do, how our platform works, and where money exchanges hands. Haven will always disclose paid partnerships or sponsored content upfront, and we will always be honest about where there are gaps in what our tools and resources can offer.

AI and data privacy

We believe that AI has incredible potential to unlock solutions to problems that were once unsolvable without enormous teams or significant funding. In tandem, we also believe that everyone should have the right to control how and where their data is used or stored, particularly if that information is health information. Read our full privacy policy here.

Haven's directory

Why we built it

No official endometriosis subspecialty exists, making it difficult for a newly diagnosed patient to determine who qualifies as a ‘specialist’ – and on what basis. Most women start from scratch, pulling information from multiple sources without a clear picture of what any of it signals. Haven's directory offers a better starting point: surgeons who have cleared a formal credential and/or practice-focus threshold, centralized in one place, with relevant details about each surgeon's training, credentials, treatment specializations, and insurance acceptance.

What it includes

Haven is transparent about how and why surgeons are listed. Every surgeon in the directory must have cleared at least one of three bars:

• Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (MIGS) fellowship or advanced surgical training: A post-residency subspecialty fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), SRC accreditation, or publicly recognized leadership in robotic-assisted, minimally invasive surgery. Because these credentials are not specific to endometriosis, surgeons qualifying on this basis alone must qualify through additional endo-specific practice focus before inclusion.
• ABOG Focused Practice Designation in MIGS: A credential from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology that acknowledges providers who possess advanced surgical expertise and dedicate a substantial proportion of their practice to the care of women with benign and complex gynecologic conditions. Designation requires a 12-month case log of 100 or more post-fellowship procedures as primary surgeon, plus active annual recertification.
• Endometriosis-focused practice affiliation: Documented affiliation with a center whose stated focus is endometriosis, or a private practice focused entirely on endometriosis. Surgeons in these settings are typically operating on endometriosis cases at consistent volume.

To maintain objectivity and consistency in listings, the primary data source for all three is each surgeon's public profile page and other publicly available, official data sources.

This is also a limitation: the directory reflects what surgeons have chosen to make publicly available on their profile, and may over- or underrepresent their specialization, surgical skill or case volume.

What it isn't

The directory is a starting point for knowing who to look into further, not an endorsement. Credentials and endo-center affiliation are meaningful signals about training and practice focus. They don't tell you how skilled a surgeon is in operating, what their case volume looks like, or whether or not they're right for any individual case. Patients researching a surgeon should go deeper than the directory alone.

Haven's surgeon reports

Why we built them

Choosing a surgeon is a high stakes decision with considerable physical and financial implications. Women spend weeks conducting intensive research – into training and credentials, what other patients have experienced, surgical technique (e.g. excision, advanced disease, fertility-sparing approaches), how much it will cost and whether their insurance will cover it. The list goes on.

That research quickly becomes emotionally and mentally overwhelming for someone managing a chronic condition that is often described as a cancer.

Surgeon intelligence reports are meant to reduce the heavy lifting by aggregating publicly available information, putting it into a structured report, giving context on what it means, and making those findings comparable across surgeons. It also names what it couldn't find, so a patient knows where the gaps are and what questions to bring to their consult.

What reports include

Each report includes information from dozens of publicly available sources, including the ones patients don't always know to check. It also covers the sources patients typically do check (Reddit, Healthgrades, RateMDs, HysterSisters, Google Reviews), searched systematically rather than selectively.

Every piece of information that is retrieved is included in the report's appendix and quote log. Nothing is filtered for tone, and sources are linked directly so findings are auditable. Each report includes an “Available Information” rating (Extensive, Moderate, or Limited) describing how much Haven could find for a given surgeon, not how good the surgeon is.

What they aren't

The report is not an endorsement and does not predict outcomes. It is restricted to what is publicly available. Individual clinical outcome data doesn't exist in public records.

The report also cannot access private or closed communities, such as private Facebook groups or gated online forums. Those gaps are noted in the report where relevant.

Ultimately, no report can conclude whether a surgeon is the right fit for a specific case. It is research to walk into a consultation feeling more prepared and empowered – not a substitute for one.