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

601–610 of 640 posts

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#601

Post by fc417fc802 »

jtrn wrote: post #570
fc417fc802 wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think I can say that there is much of a pattern between ADHD and overeating, just based on how easily I can predict if someone is overeating or not if I know they have ADHD. That is, it would be a coin toss. Person you responded to suggested P( overeating | undereating ) as opposed to your P( overeating ). I expect the effects of those two conditions would tend to cancel each other out in observations. > As…

Regarding under- and over-eating: it seems you think I am a simple mathematical average that doesn't factor that in. I stand by my observation, as and observation, not fact. Lisdexamfetamine is not amphetamine—not chemically, not in terms of its half-life, not in subjective experience, and not in any study that tracks behavioral or long-term effects. At best, it's a prodrug of an enantiomer of amphetamine. You are al…

> it seems you think I am a simple mathematical average

No, I was merely inquiring after what appeared to be a misunderstanding but apparently wasn't.

> Lisdexamfetamine is not amphetamine

Just to clarify, this topic is always needlessly confusing because "amphetamine" is used to refer to both a distinct chemical as well as an entire class of chemicals. Lisdexamfetamine is _an_ amphetamine in exactly the same way that codeine is an opiate (ie a prodrug of).

I'm not sure why you think I'm mistaken about the study nor why you are so condescending about a misunderstanding rooted in terminology. You yourself state that it is about relative drug safety and the study is also quite clear about this so it would seem that we were in agreement all along.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#602

Post by firesteelrain »

MisterSandman wrote: post #578
firesteelrain wrote: post #24

I was on Mounjaro for two months. I was also dieting and walking 10k steps a day. I lost 25 lb and my A1C went down to 5.0 from 5.7. All my cholesterol numbers were in range. I stopped taking it and lost 25 more. I haven’t regained the weight. People who gain it back did not learn the lesson and did not effectively change their habits. You need the discipline - and a good support system. But if you don’t have that an…

Someone who had to take a drug to learn how to control their weight should not be lecturing others on how to do it.

Posting what I posted below:

I have been off since Oct 2024. Also, I did continue to lose weight the traditional way. After I stopped, a coworker told me about Vida which my work offers as a health benefit.

Using the Vida service where I got a registered dietician to show me what to eat, I tracked my food and water intake and tracked my exercise. I had protein and fiber goals to hit.

You can’t do it all on the medicine - it is a lifestyle change. The medicine was the catalyst but not the reason I kept the weight off. I wanted it. But because I wanted it, I wanted to use the support system that my work paid for.

I think there is a lesson to be learned here

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#603

Post by SkyPuncher »

abirch wrote: post #507
SkyPuncher wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liraglutide isn't fully comparable. On aspect that's a lot touch for many is it's a daily injection. More needles is a turn off for some that can manage 1x/week.

Daily needles vs 12K a year is a tradeoff many people may consider. Especially if insurance companies mandate Liraglutide as a first line treatment.

It’s one people need to consider, but it’s one that the people needing it the most won’t do.

It’s a massive problem for several of my friends who are doctors. Patients start on something that works incredibly well for them then their insurance pushes them to Litaglutide and they loose all of their progress.

Some of it comes down to a fear of needles, some of it comes down to non-compliance, some of it comes down to access.

Daily injections are fatiguing on people. Its a big challenge with diabetes management.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#604

Post by Lawliepop »

k__ wrote: post #209
jtrn wrote: post #204

Clinical psychologist here in Norway, and just my subjective experience: People stop GLP1 agonists for the following reasons, in descending order: - They want to enjoy eating again. - Medications are a hassle. - Worry about long-term effects, even if there is no alarming evidence for now. - Price (we are a spoiled/rich country). - Other (like hating needles, feeling bad for taking medications that others need more, b…

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

It’s unlikely new meds will be approved this year (unless the FDA really does speed up approval processes) I made a tool to compare prices: https://www.glpwinner.com/ If you’re on name brand without insurance coverage you’re sitting around $499 a month. On compounded you can get between $150-300 a month. If you live somewhere expensive like the bay and eat out a lot you are likely saving money by being on the medication.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#605

Post by s1artibartfast »

AbstractH24 wrote: post #568
s1artibartfast wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not correct. New patents cover the new combination, but don't prevent practice of the old combination

Scroll down to the area referencing footnote 9 in this article https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11457043/ That articulates it better than I will

PS, I read the rest of the paper.

Here are some choice parts:

> Drug manufacturers listed 22 patents after FDA approval of the 10 products in the cohort...Post-approval patents only extended the duration of protection on 2 products (median 4.6 years.

This is makes sense if there is actually something novel to add [keeping in mind the authors are treating any IP as if it protects the entirety of the product. A sugar coating or whatever wont protect the non-sugar coated pill.

To the extent I agree with the paper, it is that the 30 month hold is weaponized and should be reviewed and the issue with settlements should be addressed

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#606

Post by TimedToasts »

dfxm12 wrote: post #465
raldi wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then wouldn’t the government want to subsidize it?

A government for and by the people would, yes. This doesn't describe the US government though.

We do not want tens of millions of people excreting GLP via waste products into our environment. Hormones and others are already effing things up.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#607

Post by jtrn »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #601
jtrn wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding under- and over-eating: it seems you think I am a simple mathematical average that doesn't factor that in. I stand by my observation, as and observation, not fact. Lisdexamfetamine is not amphetamine—not chemically, not in terms of its half-life, not in subjective experience, and not in any study that tracks behavioral or long-term effects. At best, it's a prodrug of an enantiomer of amphetamine. You are al…

> it seems you think I am a simple mathematical average No, I was merely inquiring after what appeared to be a misunderstanding but apparently wasn't. > Lisdexamfetamine is not amphetamine Just to clarify, this topic is always needlessly confusing because "amphetamine" is used to refer to both a distinct chemical as well as an entire class of chemicals. Lisdexamfetamine is _an_ amphetamine in exactly the same way tha…

Because I get triggered when people are illogical while using excessively complicated language and do not try to understand the points being made. Like in this comment, I clearly laid out all the ways I think lisdex != amphetamine. But you are once again answering in an obvious way without engaging my points.

If you look elsewhere in my comments, I have no problem calling myself an idiot when I make mistakes. But I hate the noise that is bad faith arguing concealed in fancy words.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#608

Post by jtrn »

glp1guide wrote: post #554
jtrn wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where I failed as a psychologist because I don't have extensive training in pharmacodynamics, so I forgot that "potent" is a specific term in that world. What I meant was: I subjectively believe that Semaglutide is the best choice for weight loss, given the overall profile and response in my subjective clinical experience. A fancy way of saying: I *think* Semaglutide is best.

Ah -- the linked research trial contains evidence that it is not the best, Tirzepatide is more effective. Unless you mean that Semaglutide worked best for you , right now the research points at Tirzepatide being most effective for weight loss (says nothing about t2d though).

No, for my patients. Again. Purely subjective and anecdotal.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#609

Post by int_19h »

eru wrote: post #593
int_19h wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly what I have in mind. "Eminent domain" doesn't mean just taking things with no recompense, but I don't think the company should be entitled to profit maximization at the expense of literally billions of people worldwide.

Eminent domain would be on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. No country has 'billions of people'.

It adds up to the same thing in aggregate.

But also, if you change it to "millions of people", the point is no less valid.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#610

Post by int_19h »

jart wrote: post #595
int_19h wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents are a form of artificial monopoly that only exists because the people (acting through their government as a representative of their will) decided to have them, and did so because they presumably are a net social benefit. Consequently, governments are not obligated to treat them as sacrosanct, and most certainly not in a case where they are not beneficial to public interests.

It's a social contract between the people and the enlightened. The people always win on a long enough timeline. But the deal is there should be some sliver of reward for a brief window of time to those who bring permanent light into our lives.

The "enlightened" are the scientists who actually developed this stuff, not the CEOs and corporate shareholders collecting economic rent from other people's hard work who pocket the vast majority of the profits. If we only had to fairly pay the people who actually did the useful work and not all the capitalist deadweight, these drugs would be orders of magnitude cheaper.
Post reply on HN