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

381–390 of 640 posts

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#381

Post by sizzle »

fnord77 wrote: post #208
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…

I pay about $40/month for mine, grey market from china

How do you mix the powder for injection?

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#382

Post by eru »

imtringued wrote: post #376
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…

It's not different time preferences. According to time preference theory the insurers have perfect information about the future so they would have taken the change in lifespan induced by GLP-1 into account before it was even invented. The assumption that mistakes are impossible is one of the core foundations of neoclassical economics. In time preference theory the bias towards the present or future is a moral issue t…

> The assumption that mistakes are impossible is one of the core foundations of neoclassical economics.

[citation needed]

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#383

Post by eru »

multjoy wrote: post #379
exabrial wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is pretty far off the cusp and seems like a bit of reddit logic "health insurance is scam, internet said so". Health insurance is one of the rare services where incentives between consumer and business are well aligned. The vast majority of people are healthy. Healthcare is expensive in the US because the uninsured population continues to rise out of "they're not making me pay for it": There are entire t…

Universal healthcare is a human right.

Food is even more of a human right, but in most places around the world most people buy their own food. Especially the better run places.

(Food assistance is usually coupled with means testing.)

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#384

Post by eru »

paulpauper wrote: post #257
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).

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.

I guess similar to smoking a handful of cigarettes a day? (Not a whole pack. More like five.)

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#385

Post by eru »

stavros wrote: post #374
refulgentis wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subtly different: you read "most...return to normal...within 2 years", it says "When someone stops the medication , they'll [return to baseline]" Then from there, I click through the 65% #, assuming they have a good study on 65% of people stop after a year. Nah, they don't. It's super complex but tl;dr: specific cohort, and somehow the # getting on it in year 2 is higher than the # of people who quit in year 1. I hav…

I've been on GLP-1 for a month and my triglycerides halved, and my cholesterol dropped to the levels it was in my twenties. If that's not a predictor of lower mortality, there's something wrong with our fundamental medical knowledge.

Has your weight dropped?

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#386

Post by sroussey »

wormius wrote: post #332
abruzzi wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mounjaro uses a single use fully autometed injector--clean your skin, remove the cap, press the injector against your skin, then press a button. A springloaded needle penetrates you skin and a spring loaded plunger injects the medicine. You have no way to pull backthe plunger to see if you are in a vein/artery. I've never used Ozempic, but my understanding was it used a device similar to insulin pens--dial you dosage…

Yeah, both Ozempic and Trulicity have automated systems like this, just press a button and pop. Is there even a way to hit a vein? The needle is not very deep (it's subcutaneous, just barely under the skin). And it's the stomach, which AFAIK, doesn't have a lot of exposed veins? Either way super simple and quick. Fairly painless. I had a weird rash one time, but apart from that a total of about 15 injections haven't…

You can get these drugs with a vial and needles and it’s cheaper that way. Not familiar with the autoinjectors, but the instructions when using a vial and insulin needles is definitely to pull back.

Peptides don’t have the same negatives as say insulin, but preferable to not have them in your bloodstream nonetheless.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#387

Post by eru »

darth_avocado wrote: post #106
DavidPeiffer wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will be going through underwriting again, your new rate will be based on starting at an older age, and you'll have a new exclusion period begin (unless there are some provisions which prevent these in the event of a company failure). Hopefully you haven't had any significant health conditions present themselves since the original policy went into effect.

Insurance companies will find any and every reason to not insure you. A slight change in lifestyle could mean you are no longer covered.

Insurance companies only make money, when they insure people..

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#388

Post by eru »

FabHK wrote: post #61
hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... I just switch life insurance providers? Seriously, that's just not that big of a deal. It takes like a few days at most for simple term life. Can't speak to the other policies, which I understand are mostly tax vehicles anyway, but it's not hard to simply get a new life insurance policy if your current one goes kaput.

... and the question was about the aggregate effect. What happens if all life insurers go bankrupt?

Why would they all go bankrupt? Seems silly.

Yes, some life insurance companies can make mistakes or get unlucky. after a few went bankrupt from whatever you are imagining, you'd think that the remaining companies would change their risk models or simply charge higher premiums?

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#389

Post by eru »

FabHK wrote: post #367
carlosjobim wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is great, they are by definition a net negative on the economy as a whole? You shouldn't gamble on your own health.

No. Many people have family/kids and want to care for them, and their plan A is to work until retirement. If they die prior to that, the family/kids would be in dire straits. That's plan B, the issue life insurance solves perfectly well. That, in fact, is the general (and beneficial) function of insurance: You only need to provision for the expected loss (plus some fee for the insurance), not the maximum loss (which…

What do you mean by 'expected' loss? You don't mean the expected value in the statistical sense?

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#390

Post by eru »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #210
carlosjobim wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is great, they are by definition a net negative on the economy as a whole? You shouldn't gamble on your own health.

Life insurance, in the past, was frequently illegal. I'd argue that it should be illegal again, as a moral hazard (directly contributing to countless murders and other schemes) and as a particularly morbid form of gambling.

> (directly contributing to countless murders and other schemes)

Do you have any data on how much of a problem that is?

Post reply on HN