Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 301 posts

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#221

Post by eyelidlessness »

HyperSane wrote: post #206
eyelidlessness wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From high school through nearly all of my adult life I’ve been obese. For the last several years my weight has barely fluctuated, but it’s fluctuated between caution about being underweight and a few pounds “overweight” that barely even count. I’ve eaten almost exactly the same the whole time. The two factors which changed: - I take ADHD meds, amphetamines, which are appetite suppressants. They haven’t made me eat le…

People are notorious for underestimating how many calories they are eating. Modern food is so cheap and delicious it isn't hard to eat 1000 calories in a few minutes. I lost weight by only eating food with accurate calorie information available that I could weight to the gram. I then used MyFitnessPal to track it and keep a 1000 calorie/day deficit.

I’m eating basically the same food, basically the same quantities, and I did start paying attention to the calories. Amusingly I started paying closer attention when I was worried about losing too much weight, and when I found myself frequently craving sweets (which I very seldom have since I was a kid).

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#222

Post by phil21 »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #221
HyperSane wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are notorious for underestimating how many calories they are eating. Modern food is so cheap and delicious it isn't hard to eat 1000 calories in a few minutes. I lost weight by only eating food with accurate calorie information available that I could weight to the gram. I then used MyFitnessPal to track it and keep a 1000 calorie/day deficit.

I’m eating basically the same food, basically the same quantities, and I did start paying attention to the calories. Amusingly I started paying closer attention when I was worried about losing too much weight , and when I found myself frequently craving sweets (which I very seldom have since I was a kid).

The simple act of tracking things - even with no intent to change - typically makes me eat far less, or do the activity far more. Anecdotes with friends makes me believe this is quite common.

There is literally no way to take in more calories than you expend and not gain weight - short of hyper-specific and exceedingly rare medical conditions you'd be quite aware of.

Some people find this easier or harder than others due to a whole host of factors. Physics is physics though, and there is no way to run a calorie deficit and not lose weight. It's why this drug class is so interesting/popular - it lowers the bar for many people, making the effort of taking in less calories than they expend much easier to achieve.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#223

Post by fakedang »

agsqwe wrote: post #195
WillPostForFood wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pharma company seeking to maximize profits by constraining supply They have a monopoly on the drug, what's the evidence they are constraining supply? It makes no sense, the price is set, the more they supply the more money they make.

I think what's meant here it's that the manufacturer chose to target specific patient groups (T2D) and commercial insurances to get the highest profit per dose. About 40% of adults in the US are obese, they could have made the drug available at much lower cost and get their profits from economies of scale. Instead, the production is low and the focus is narrow.

It's not always the case that production is made intentionally low. There are actual limits to how much times a chemical/biochemical production process can be run in a given year. I'm actually learning this the hard way with one biotech project.

The alternative might be a $200 million dollar production facility which may not even be feasible to cater to the excess of consumers. Or which may be too excessive for the excess of consumers targeted.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#224

Post by Retric »

Rury wrote: post #200
rhinoceraptor wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answers that are interesting and worth discussing, are things like the introduction of hyperpalatable foods, excess oxidized omega 6 polyunsaturated fats, excess carbohydrates, excess fructose, etc., the debates rage on. The answer that is not interesting is simply saying that people take in more calories than they expend, because it it tautologically true. People now are more health-conscious than at any point i…

You're entitled to find his or anyone's answer not interesting, but what he said is not a tautology. Just because it's obvious does not make it tautological. But in any case, the matter really is as simple as people eating too much nowadays. Evolutionary speaking, we didn't eat 3 meals every day, let alone all highly calorie packed ones. Food was also relatively quite scarce for much of civilization, until modern pre…

Our ancestors often had an abundance of food and ate quite a lot every day even if it was relatively more expensive. But, it’s harder to be obese and have by todays standards an extremely active lifestyle.

Not only do you run into limits on the digestive system but carrying extra weight means spending more energy moving that weight around. The classic lumberjack breakfast is just an insane amount of food, but you didn’t see a lot of fat lumberjacks in the 1850’s.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#225

Post by matthewdgreen »

anonporridge wrote: post #203
wincy wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exercising has nothing to do with weight loss, although it’s still good for you with obvious benefits. Just losing weight is in my experience purely diet if you’re living any sort of standard American lifestyle where you’re really sedentary, or even moderately active. Maybe if you were like thru hiking you’d lose weight from exercise?

This is completely absurd in my personal experience. The amount of long duration, low intensity cardio I do has a massive effect on decreasing my weight with no dietary changes.

Beware personal experience. When I was in my 20s and 30s your statement was true for me as well. Now in the second half of my 40s, my body compensates for arbitrary amounts of exercise (HIIT+hiking) by increasing my appetite and I reliably weigh 20-30 pounds more than I did when younger. I briefly tried one of the medications mentioned in this article and it wasn't magic: all it did is make my appetite and metabolism operate more like it did when I was 20s/30s.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#226

Post by matthewdgreen »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #139
HDThoreaun wrote: post #37

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/semaglutidonomics These new weight loss medications are the solution to obesity. Imo this is one of the biggest medical advances of the century and at least in urban areas of wealthy countries, I don’t think we’ll see obese people anymore in 10 years. The pharma companies realized they’ve got something truly revolutionary so they took the old tried and true drug dealer strategy.…

I don't think that it's a good idea to have the majority of Americans dependent on a single manufacturers drug to maintain a healthy weight.

The Semaglutide patents expire in 2029 and it's already available (borderline illegally) from China via compounding pharmacies. Tirzepatide doesn't expire until 2037, unfortunately.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#227

Post by matthewdgreen »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #2

I understand that $25 may have been an introductory loss leader but $1k seems insane and short sighted given the size of the market this drug potentially has.

They are currently unable to produce enough of these medications, so charging a fortune for it makes sense to them. Private enterprise is stepping in to fill the gap via US "compounding pharmacies", with all the potential safety risks that entails.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#228

Post by MichaelZuo »

mannanj wrote: post #173
bedast wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That it is currently labeled only for Type 2 diabetes is a marketing decision by the manufacturer, not a characteristic of the drug. Regulatory approval. It is a diabetes drug because it has been evaluated as such, including understanding the primary effects and side effects at various dosing levels. Mounjaro is prescribed to diabetics from 2.5mg to 15mg in increments of 2.5mg and titrated based on needs and goals.…

Coupon terms changed because drug makers can't promote this? Can you help me understand why the ability to promote would have any bearing on a coupon's terms?

Coupons for products or services are considered a form of promotion.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#229

Post by MichaelZuo »

anaisbetts wrote: post #204
bedast wrote: post #36

Mounjaro is not an obesity drug. It's a type 2 diabetes drug. Do not call it an obesity drug. The headline is editorialized. The linked article's headline: The ‘next Ozempic’ became a social media sensation. Then everything changed The coupon didn't go away. The coupon's terms changed. I'm using the coupon now. Because I have type 2 diabetes. The coupon changed because people were using it to get the drug for off-lab…

> Leave the diabetes drugs alone. Is artificially partitioning what is almost certainly the same medication (with the same manufacturing process) into two separate product lines actually a Good Thing? This means that when Mounjaro has supply problems even with the split, diabetics won't be able to get it because part of the supply is inaccessible to them since it is dedicated to a different "product". Instead we shou…

Who is this 'we'?

I'm quite certain a large fraction of the HN userbase still believes that people can do independent business without being forced along one direction or another.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#230

Post by bedast »

mannanj wrote: post #173
bedast wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That it is currently labeled only for Type 2 diabetes is a marketing decision by the manufacturer, not a characteristic of the drug. Regulatory approval. It is a diabetes drug because it has been evaluated as such, including understanding the primary effects and side effects at various dosing levels. Mounjaro is prescribed to diabetics from 2.5mg to 15mg in increments of 2.5mg and titrated based on needs and goals.…

Coupon terms changed because drug makers can't promote this? Can you help me understand why the ability to promote would have any bearing on a coupon's terms?

Allowing the coupon to be used for the treatment of obesity is an implicit approval for the drug to be used in this way, and coupons are a form of marketing. Lilly cannot approve nor market this drug in a way that is off-label. This is why when Lilly talks about testing tirzepatide for weight loss, they say tirzepatide and not Mounjaro. Whenever you see articles mentioning Mounjaro for weight loss, these are statements not originating from Lilly.
Post reply on HN