Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic reduction on the utilisation of healthcare services are reported in different contexts. Nevertheless, studies have not explored specifically gender disparities on access to healthcare. Aim: To evaluate disparities in access to care in Chile during the COVID-19 pandemic from a gender-based perspective. Methods: We conducted a quasi-experimental design using a difference-in-difference approach. We compared the number of weekly confirmed cases of a set of oncologic and cardiovascular time-sensitive conditions at a national level. We defined weeks 12 to 26 as an intervention period and the actual year as a treatment group. We selected this period because preventive interventions, such as school closures or teleworking, were implemented at this point. To test heterogeneity by sex, we included an interaction term between difference-in-difference estimator and sex. Results: A sizable reduction in access to care for patients with time-sensitivity conditions was observed for oncologic (IRR 0·56; 95% CI 0·50-0·63) and cardiovascular diseases (IRR 0·64; 95% CI 0·62-0·66). Greater reduction occurred in women compared to men across diseases groups, particularly marked on myocardial infarction (0·89; 95% CI 0·85-0·93), stroke (IRR 0·88 IC95% 0·82-0·93), and colorectal cancer (IRR 0·79; 95% CI 0·69-0·91). Compared to men, a greater absolute reduction in women for oncologic diseases (782; 95% CI 704-859) than cardiovascular diseases (172; 95% CI 170-174) occurred over 14 weeks. Conclusion: We confirmed a large drop in new diagnosis for time-sensitive conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile. This reduction was greater for women. Our findings should alert policy-makers about the urgent need to integrate a gender perspective into the pandemic response and its aftermath.Funding Statement: This work was funded by the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID), Scholarship program, DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE 2020 – 21200241 and COVID research fund ANIDCOVID0960.Declaration of Interests: The authors have nothing to disclose.Ethics Approval Statement: Since this study used secondary data from publicly available sources collected by the Ministry of Health, which are registered anonymously, we did not require institutional review board approval.