re: On Mounjaro for two months, my take - 7 month update

quote:

---

It's amazing how humanity has all of a sudden developed this GLP-1 deficiency within the past 40 years. That's a remarkable time for an evolutionary change. That it coincides with an abundance of shitty food, shitty nutritional advice and more sedentary lifestyles is even more curious.

---

Big pharma to the rescue

quote:

---

I have a vantage point and access to information and data that very few others do. And I believe everyone should know.

---

So do I.

Without question, those on GLP meds without a diabetes diagnoses do not save the healthcare system money.

They are a drain, to the tune of billions of dollars a year.

quote:

---

Without question, those on GLP meds without a diabetes diagnoses do not save the healthcare system money. They are a drain, to the tune of billions of dollars a year.

---

You are so wrong. It’s cute you are trying to ignore the fact that obesity causes diabetes. It’s not even remotely close how much obesity taxes our healthcare system to solely looking at the cost of the meds. It’s pretty simple to understand. I’ve laid it out for you already.

You can continue believing whatever you want, but the long term cost of treating everything that obesity causes is a big multiple of the cost of treating obesity with meds.

The cost of treating diabetes alone is greater than the cost of the meds. As a single line item it is greater, if you want to assume there is zero cost to treating all the other things I’ve already mentioned.

It’s not even remotely close. Use some common sense man.

Edit to add. I am not a fan of big pharma at all. I’m not a fan of big insurance either. It seems like you are toting the line of insurance lobby talking points pretty hard. I’m guessing that is your vantage point(from insurance side). Does it bother you that insurance companies record record profits over and over again? They aren’t any better than big pharma.

I am for helping people with the disease of obesity and educating others about the current state of things and the cutting edge knowledge around this issue, especially since it has become such a hot topic. So, for the record, frick big pharma and frick big insurance too. Better quality of life, more productive members of our society and economy, and lower long term cost of care should be something we can all get behind. And yes, by getting rid of obesity we would reduce overall healthcare costs by multiples of the cost of treating with meds to a point we can’t even calculate it because almost every other medical condition is worsened or caused by obesity.

quote:

---

Obesity is the root cause for most all health problems in my honest opinion. Where you and I differ is that you believe that obesity is something as simple as GLP1 levels. Burn more energy than you consume, you lose weight. Easy peasy.

---

I am 100% for anyone doing this that can sustain it. You don’t want to acknowledge that when GLP-1 levels are low, it drives hunger to a level that can’t be overcome by the vast majority of people.

Zero medicine is the absolute best route if a patient can achieve it. Most cannot, unfortunately. And that is not for a lack of trying.

The entire debate doesn’t have to be so angry. It can remain academic.

quote:

---

It’s not even remotely close. Use some common sense man.

---

I only look at and present the data weekly that contradicts your opinions but yeah, ill ignore that and trust common sense

It’s not an opinion, it’s an inarguable fact. Not only are acute admissions, obs and ER visits not reduced aggregately among those on GLP meds without a diabetes diagnoses, the overall cost increases from prior year before the start of the meds with the biggest jump in cost being on the pharmacy side, obviously.

You’re arguing the same obvious trend that surgeons promised would occur due to variation procedures that never occurred. It’s proven to increase costs every single year.

quote:

---

You’re arguing the same obvious trend that surgeons promised would occur due to variation procedures that never occurred. It’s proven to increase costs every single year.

---

You are clearly looking at data from insurance side, which of course is packaged in a manner to deny coverage lol. All good man. That packaged data is in complete contrast with the top research knowledge today. No worries. GLP-1 agonists have not been used to treat obesity for long enough to make the claims you are making, but again…all good buddy. Get with an actuary and project the lifetime costs and not just year 1. I know insurance companies are only concerned with making money right now and next quarter, but you must be able to see past that to understand the long term cost implications of not treating obesity. Even you admit you have to remove diabetes treatment from your data to make the data work for your argument. Packages data is just that. Packaged to tell a story. Insurance doesn’t want to have to cover this, so of course they must make an argument that it is not cost effective. The problem is that it is. Time will prove that retrospectively. The studies are already ongoing, but some of these are projected as far out as 20 to 30 years.

We can agree to disagree; but time is not your friend regarding the net cost argument. I will share that I do believe more stringent parameters should be put in place to curtail the many that abuse it and shouldn’t be prescribed it in the first place. There are definitely plenty of issues that need to be worked through on this. And they will.

I’ve already given more time to this than I should. Best wishes.

quote:

---

Do you really think that if healthcare providers thought it saved money they wouldn’t want to cover it? They don’t want to cover it because it doesn’t save money. There’s no reason to package the data..it’s simple Rev / Cost analysis.

---

Sigh, can’t resist. So, why remove diabetics from your data then? Because you have to in order to make your data work even in a one year window. Are you arguing that obesity doesn’t cause diabetes? Or is that just an inconvenient fact for your argument?

Obesity doesn’t cause the litany of other issues overnight man. You can’t be that dense to not understand that. Insurance data only concerns its balance sheets with staying profitable now and next quarter. There is no concern for years down the road and the net savings over time on this issue. Especially due to how many people job hop and switch providers. Fortunately the research medical community doesn’t operate that way. There is a fundamental problem with insurance approach to the data. And again, even in your short window of time you must remove diabetics to make your data package properly.

Project this out over the next 20 years and it’s laughable how wrong you are. But, again, insurance companies don’t care about that. Only profits right now!!!!

I’m not asking anyone to rely solely on common sense, but common sense alone is more than adequate to understand this. Are you also excluding pain management of ortho and neuro problems? Kidney? Liver? Heart? Psychological? Even in the short term you are having to manipulate the numbers to make it work. But as the legendary Joseph Dirtè put it, keep on keepin on man.

Edit for additional query. Does your data say bariatric surgery is cost effective? I acknowledge openly that the long term data doesn’t exist, which is really what is needed here. I’m willing to concede that that is truly the end all be all, and we simply cannot have that for some time. And yes, for now, the meds are very very expensive.

quote:

---

in patients without a diabetes diagnoses

---

Data can be valid and still framed or packaged. Like excluding anyone with a diabetes diagnosis, for one example. That exclusion continues to be mentioned. We both understand the cost of treating diabetes.

Can you acknowledge that obesity has a causation correlation with diabetes?

This is some great "internetting"

Really exhilarating conversation, hope it continues.

5 out of 5 stars. Would recommend.