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

GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

glp1digest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 640 posts

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#251

Post by thatnerdyguy »

jtrn wrote: post #226
k__ wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much does it cost right now? Are there any alternatives coming out soon or generics?

For semaglutide, the newest and most potent GLP1. United States: The main patent is expected to expire around 2032. Monthly Price: $950 - $1,350+ (cash price without insurance) Norway: The main patent is expected to expire around 2031. Monthly Price: $109 - $301 (cash price equivalent in USD)

I'll note that in the US that 1000+ is the "list price". For those paying out of pocket, both zepbound and wegovy offer coupons available to anyone taking it down to $500 (and I'll note that discounted price keeps coming down, slowly, as well)

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#252

Post by alvah »

jameshart wrote: post #26
arn3n wrote: post #4

Obesity is highly correlated with other medical conditions, from cancer to diabetes to heart disease. I wonder if there is a point at which it is cheaper for health insurance companies to offer subsidized or even free GLP-1s to patients than pay out for other specialized medications. For example, my insurance covers flu shots in my community every year because it's presumably less expensive to pay for the shots compa…

We have no idea what the long tern actuarial numbers are of 30 year GLP-1 use though.

Well no, obviously not, but we do have 20 years of data, and aside from a still-tiny-but-slightly-elevated thyroid cancer risk, there’s really not much showing up in that data.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#253

Post by alvah »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #182
cm2187 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I tend to notice the effect wears off over time. Not sure it's a good idea to consume it permanently. Perhaps a better use would be for short periods to course correct.

According to all the studies, this is absolutely the worst thing that you can do. GLP-1s are revolutionary, but when you go on them, you should intend to stay on them for life. When patients first go on them, they lose both muscle and fat, and when they go off them, they regain just fat, and in many cases they're in a worse situation than they would be if they hadn't gone on them in the first place. Letting your weig…

GLP-1 definitely doesn’t prevent you increasing your percentage of total calories from protein, and doing regular resistance exercise. That was the advice from my doctor, and while I’m only 2 months in, weekly scans have not yet shown any significant decrease in lean mass. I don’t see any reason why they would, as long as I continue eating protein and lifting heavy things.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#254

Post by throwawaysleep »

gregw134 wrote: post #245
loeg wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't even that awful in maintenance -- just expensive. The unpleasant part is when you're increasing the dose. After a while at the same dose, it's more or less unnoticeable IMO.

Unnoticable meaning doesn't have any effect at all, or just no bad side effects?

As in I cannot identify anything wrong with me most of the time while on them.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#255

Post by paulpauper »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #110
linsomniac wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's a miracle drug powerful enough to robustly lower people's all cause mortality Did I misread the article, my TL;DR of the article is that GLP-1 reduce the indicators or mortality without modifying the actual mortality (because most users return to normal indicators within about 2 years).

"If we assume about 65% of people who start GLP-1 medications quit by the end of year one, that creates a big problem. When someone stops the medication, they'll usually regain the weight they lost, and in two years, most of those key health indicators (like BMI, blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol) bounce back to their starting point. " So in addition to the quitters returning back to normal after they got l…

Except for extreme obesity, it is about the same as people not on the drugs . Even moderate obesity only lowers life expectancy by a few years in men and about none in women. of course, quality of life will may be worse. Obesity only meaningfully lowers life expectancy at a BMI of 40-45+ for men

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#256

Post by 9x39 »

lumost wrote: post #42
paul7986 wrote: post #17

I believe AI along with smart glasses that shows and calculates your daily caloric intake will be a SUBSTITUTE (another option) to the Ozempics. With AI glasses doing this automatically for you upon seeing what your eating without u having to do anything some people may be shocked to learn how many calories they consume daily. Currently, it's too time consuming now for the majority to do (i use GPT via texting it or…

You're being downvoted as many people who try to count calories fail to achieve meaningful results. From my own experience, weight gain follows a simple progression. 1. Expected high stress work day -> Coffee w/ food item in the morning 2. Stress during the day -> No exercise + large lunch. 3. Post-day -> door dash due to not feeling up for cooking. 4. Sleep -> Get 6 hours of sleep due to not having the energy to mai…

I think of a calorie tracker as a compass as I navigate an overly calorie-dense world that doesn't make us exert ourselves to the point of caloric deficits any longer.

For the aware user, combined with a scale, it helps normalize estimations of calories which can be incredibly deceptive. For example, try getting a group of people to estimate how many calories are in a store-bought muffin or donut, a bowl of nuts, a sweetened coffee drink from a drive-thru, or their typical bowl of a favorite cereal. I'm used to the casual observer's guess being about 1/3 of the true total if you weigh the item and read the label.

So in your scenario, the calorie counter would be a signal that you need to cut portions or cal density if your weight is going in the wrong direction, not unlike how a compass is just a tool if you're lost - you still need to know how to use it.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#257

Post by paulpauper »

linsomniac wrote: post #98
hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #23

So... There's a miracle drug powerful enough to robustly lower people's all cause mortality, but since health insurance and life insurance are industries with vastly different time preferences, this is not a good thing for the life insurers because people just keep getting off the magic longevity drug and screwing up their predictions. Because, admittedly, it kind of sucks in the moment to be on. And I'm guessing jus…

>There's a miracle drug powerful enough to robustly lower people's all cause mortality Did I misread the article, my TL;DR of the article is that GLP-1 reduce the indicators or mortality without modifying the actual mortality (because most users return to normal indicators within about 2 years).

The drugs do not reduce mortality much or even at all. Such drugs may improve quality of life though. Except for severe obesity, 40+ BMI, life expectancy is not lowered much in men and even less in women in the setting of obesity. It's just that being obese makes all sorts of markers worse, yet people do not die much sooner. It's more about improving quality of life.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#258

Post by firesteelrain »

jstummbillig wrote: post #154
DrillShopper wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi there - Mounjaro user here. I've been using it for about a year at this point. I feel sick for three days in a row after taking it. Even after several months on the same dose. I get horrible gut cramps, sour stomach, near constant nausea, and occasionally vomiting and diarrhea. I have to take my shot on Thursday night because I'll feel bad the next day and supremely sick the next two days. If I took it earlier or…

I mean no offense, but you have a fairly substantiated body of evidence that something in the medication is causing the weight loss. The side effects do sound really shitty though.

It makes you feel less hungry. It doesn’t burn fat. Eat less + exercise = weight loss

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#259

Post by paulpauper »

Jach wrote: post #162
arn3n wrote: post #4

Obesity is highly correlated with other medical conditions, from cancer to diabetes to heart disease. I wonder if there is a point at which it is cheaper for health insurance companies to offer subsidized or even free GLP-1s to patients than pay out for other specialized medications. For example, my insurance covers flu shots in my community every year because it's presumably less expensive to pay for the shots compa…

I don't think GLP-1s are particularly expensive, so my top preference would be to just see them easily available. While not quite the same, it's a win that Rogaine/Minoxidil were once prescription-only but for a long time now can be bought at any grocery store and taken to the self-checkout. Still, I think the subsidy approach has been done for smoking problems via nicotine products before, and e.g. nicotine gum cost…

yeah this is true. When people say that obesity is worse than smoking, I'm like "Have you looked at the actual stats on this?"

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#260

Post by Aurornis »

terminalshort wrote: post #238
Aurornis wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think GLP-1s are particularly expensive On-patent GLP-1s (all of them right now) are actually extremely expensive. Right around $1000 per month. I don’t want to discourage anyone who needs them from seeking treatment, but their discontinuation rate can be somewhat higher than you’d think from a life-changing drug because many people don’t like certain effects or even encounter side effects. Weight loss drug…

People who want to misuse the medication are going to be the ones most willing and able to jump through the bureaucratic hoops. Increasing the difficulty to get the medication will only make it more difficult for legitimate users and won't decrease abuse. In 1920, 1970, and now, heroin was legal, illegal with minimal enforcement, and illegal with harsh enforcement (except in SF), and the same percentage of the popula…

> People who want to misuse the medication are going to be the ones most willing and able to jump through the bureaucratic hoops

This thinking seems correct to people who grew up knowing about the dark web, Silk Road, and who believe they could access any substance they want if they wanted it.

It is not accurate for the majority of the population. For the average person, misuse of drugs isn’t a calculated decision. It’s one of convenience and opportunity.

> In 1920, 1970, and now, heroin was legal, illegal with minimal enforcement, and illegal with harsh enforcement (except in SF), and the same percentage of the population was addicted at each time.

This is a very misleading statistic for multiple reasons, as if it was engineered for the purpose of obscuring the problem.

Why pick 3 separate dates and limit only to 1 drug? There is a massive opioid epidemic that was fueled by increased availability of different forms of opioids beyond heroin. In the 1920s and 1970s they didn’t have OxyContin being diverted, Fentanyl flowing into drug distribution networks, or even Kratom products available at the local gas station. The availability and convenience of these different opioids has unquestionably increased opioid addictions.

Even more recently, the widespread legalization of marijuana has led to an increase in the number of daily users and the doses that people consume, even thought the libertarian arguments maintained that no such thing would happen.

At this point I can’t buy any arguments that claim that availability of drugs has no impact on misuse or addiction.

Post reply on HN