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

611–620 of 640 posts

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#611

Post by sgerenser »

reverendsteveii wrote: post #521
coredog64 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This misunderstands how employer-provided insurance works for most people. Large employers sign up with a company like Cigna to provide a network and administrative process. But the actual healthcare is covered by the employer. So really, Cigna or BCBS don't really give a rip if you're taking a bunch of money out of the pool.

So what you're saying is when I file a claim and it's paid (precious miracle that that is) it comes from my employer and not the insurance company?

Most likely, if you’re in a medium to large company (not sure the cutoff, probably somewhere around 500-1000 employees). Smaller companies will generally actually need the insurance company to be the payer as well since otherwise one or two huge payouts could bankrupt them.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#612

Post by exabrial »

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.

Really? I have the right to demand the services of another person?

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#613

Post by busterarm »

firesteelrain wrote: post #496
busterarm wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of skinny people with a family history of diabetes find that they can become diabetic/pre-diabetic as they age. The trick to avoid it is to put on muscle mass, which regulates your blood glucose levels.

Thank you. I will keep monitoring my A1C and lifting weights

I recomped 30lbs of fat to lean mass and had a 2 point drop in A1C. Real shit.

Get after it!

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#614

Post by hiAndrewQuinn »

neaden wrote: post #492
hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are, they're basically mathematical inverses of the same product. Big Annuity can charge you more, in fact, if it has reason to believe you're going to live unusually long, so playing the GLP-1 dance with them would only be profitable in reverse. Pretend to be the unhealthiest person on the planet, lock in an annuity, then get on the drip stat.

I think the difference is people generally get Life Insurance when they are younger (I'm guessing frequently when they have kids, that is when I got it at least) but get Annuities when they are a senior. I don't know anyone my age who is purchasing an annuity now, though I suppose there must be someone who would be willing to sell it.

I think the deal would have to be very sweet for eg a 30 year old like yours truly to forgo 35 years of index fund gains to pick up an annuity instead. That's also 35 years where the annuity firm itself night shutter its doors - a risky play, but right for the right price.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#615

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

staringback wrote: post #469
potamic wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you lose any muscle mass?

They most certainly did, these drugs stop you from eating, not magically burn fat and leave muscle mass alone. It has the same effect as starving yourself. Go look up pictures of "ozempic face"

"Ozempic face" is just the result of excessive weight loss. The term is basically putting the blame on the drug for people wanting to continue to lose weight even after achieve a healthy weight.

It's completely unrelated to GLP-1s. 5+ years ago, we would have just called it "Anorexic face".

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#616

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

oger wrote: post #428
kistaro wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it costs $1000/mo and insurance wants to make it as hard as possible to get that covered because they cannot afford to pay $1000/mo * 45% of Americans without doing things to their rates that are forbidden by the ACA and, for that matter, any approximation of good sense. If people cannot afford an additional $450/mo each on average for their health care, how do you cover a critical long-term $1000/mo drug tha…

Is that the cost in the U.S.??

Yup. Without insurance, GLP-1s can be up to $1,200/month.

The simple fact is, when it comes to drugs, the development is basically paid for by Americans.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#617

Post by refulgentis »

oger wrote: post #429
samus wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, sure - but are diabetes patients representative of the whole target market for GLP-1? And there will still be an uncomfortable variable that controls the outcome - patient compliance. That's what makes life insurers woozy.

I didn't have look on the studies but I would not be surprised if a decent amount of participants were completely healthy individuals. And maybe (more from random sampling) some unsuspicious mildly overweight without other problems. Especially in the earlier cohorts of testing.

Right, you should read it though, we're in the weeds over here, it's not just sort of free-assocating chat, we're picking apart specific things about the article. One of them, as I mentioned 4 up, is that the study with the 65% # is confounded because the groupings involve type 1 diabetes, and also, the number rebounds higher than the # who stopped

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#618

Post by refulgentis »

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.

I agree! (is this responding to part of my comment? :) )

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#619

Post by chhxdjsj »

AbstractH24 wrote: post #424
chhxdjsj wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grey market from China is around $250/year for tirzepatide There are group chats with tens of thousands of people and I havent seen any issues with the drug

How do you ensure the safety and consistency of anything? Asking for a friend.

Use stairwaytogray, find a supplier with a history of many many 99+% purity reports from 3rd party testing sent to janoshik, then order 20 vials from that supplier, then either send a vial to janoshik yourself or participate in a group buy test (or just wait for someone else to test the same batch. At that point, it is very likely your ampoules have the same purity and amount. The best supplier seems to currently be sigma audley.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#620

Post by thephyber »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #494
thephyber wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the drug + the injector together are the patentable thing. When the first patent nears expiration, they work on an iteration of the injector or a time release change for the drug, then they get another few decades of product monopoly. They have also made a business of either stifling or “catch and kill”ing of the generics for their products. It’s cheaper to pay off a generic manufacturer to not compete with the…

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

I didn’t make the claim that the expired patent prevented the practice.

My comment was a quick and sloppy summary from my memory of an interview from several years ago. I think it was the EconTalk with the author of Drug Wars.

A more detailed and comprehensive list of these tactics to reduce competition either during or after patent expiry:

Patent-related strategies:

• Building “patent thickets” by filing multiple patents on different aspects of the same drug (formulation, dosing, manufacturing processes) • “Evergreening” - seeking new patents on minor modifications to extend exclusivity periods • Filing continuation patents and divisional applications to extend patent timelines Product lifecycle management: • “Product hopping” - making minor reformulations or switching to extended-release versions just before generic entry to move patients to the new version • Discontinuing older versions that generics would reference

Legal and regulatory tactics:

• Pay-for-delay settlements where brand companies pay generics to postpone market entry • Manipulating FDA safety programs (REMS) to make it difficult for generics to obtain necessary samples for testing • Citizen petitions to the FDA raising questions about generic equivalence

Market-based approaches:

• Launching “authorized generics” through subsidiaries to capture generic market share • Exclusive dealing arrangements with pharmacy benefit managers

Post reply on HN