Comment by subroutine | Hacker News Reader

Comment by subroutine | Hacker News Reader

It will be interesting to see how health insurance companies deal with Ozempic. A few days ago a top article on HN posed the question: Millions of Americans could benefit from drugs like Ozempic; will they bankrupt the healthcare system?

Of course there are many health benefits to losing weight. Given there are clear, healthy, non-drug assisted ways to lose weight, should drug-assisted weight loss be considered an 'elective' procedure, so to speak (similar to liposuction). With so many people qualifying for this drug, would it be fair to increase insurance premiums for overweight individuals? (I say this as someone who could lose a few lbs). Should healthy active folks who keep their weight in-check naturally be required to foot some of the insurance premium bill for those who use this drug to lose weight? If someone rebounds multiple times after going off Ozempic do we continue to collectively pay? Will we be required to collectively pay for people to stay on Ozempic indefinitely to maintain a healthy weight?

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2024-05-29/will-ozempi...

The cost of someone being on Ozempic is going to be miles less than treating fatties for all the related obesity problems.

Yeah, right now the cost of the drug itself is high, but as that comes down and/or once the patents expire, it's a no brainer for insurance companies to fund it, in the same way that even the worst health insurance plans usually allow for cheap office visits and free flu vaccinations.

I agree if the cost becomes negligible or whenever it becomes cost effective (I'm sure the insurance companies will be tracking the data closely) - until then though?

I'd have to see some data to be convinced. There is nothing more problematic to health than aging. If we make all "fatties" thin we'll eventually get a bunch of geriatric cancer or dementia patients, or some other expensive age-related health problem (e.g. what is the lifetime healthcare cost-burden of obese people who live on average to 65 vs. thin people who live on average to 85 - just making up numbers here)

I agree. Fat people dropping dead in their 50s and 60s are way cheaper than the folks who hang on into their 90s getting steadily more infirm with chronic disease.

I still expect that the cost will reach a point where insurance companies opt to 100% subsidize so everyone who wants it will get it.

Another option: Move to a healthcare system that allows the government to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies so ozempic is no longer so expensive that it bankrupts us.

The UK gets their semaglutide meds from Novo Nordisk for ~£75 to ~£175 depending on the dosage for a month supply. It starts at ~$1k in the US. Tons of other countries with similar or better negotiated pricing.

Instead of implementing a system that would allow our government to have leverage to prevent this sort of thing from happening to begin with, we sit around, wait for enough everyday people to get screwed over by it to start raising a ruckus, and then some federal agencies fine you a infinitesimal amount compared to the profits you made, your CEO goes and testifies in front of Congress for a few minutes, and even on the most positive outcome side, they then reduce the prices, and basically never to the levels they negotiated with other countries.

Meanwhile they keep the overwhelming amount of money they made selling it to Americans at outrageous prices. And hell - that's capitalism, baby! I can't say I have any expectation of a company behaving any differently when this is a valid way to operate.

So we gotta make it not a valid way to operate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com