Started By
Message

re: Healthcare industry bitching about lost revenue thanks to glp-1s

Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:35 am to
Posted by Fun Bunch
New Orleans
Member since May 2008
131765 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:35 am to
quote:

Insurance companies should be paying for anyone asking for GLP-1. Paying for pills for a while is much cheaper than heart procedures, cancer treatments, etc.



I'll take it a step further. Medicare and Medicaid should play for GLP-1s
Posted by Knuckle Checker
Member since Jan 2019
712 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:35 am to
quote:

Now do heart disease. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theory loon, I don't believe for a second there's not a drug that can dissolve arterial plaque. But it would destroy a multibillion industry overnight.


It would also make whatever company created it a trillion dollars overnight. GLP1s completely reshaped the economy of Denmark it was so successful. So why would a company keep a heart disease cure under wraps?

It’s not a “system” it’s a bunch of independent companies competing for profits.
Posted by Chucktown_Badger
The banks of the Ashley River
Member since May 2013
37590 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:37 am to
quote:

GLP1s are increasing healthcare premiums as indications expand. I work on actuarial rate setting in multiple states


Millions more people being on a therapy that required coverage and reimbursement who weren't on it before will generally do that.

If premiums and cost become such that people can no longer afford or want to pay for them, that's a choice they can make...and they can stay fat just like they were before GLP-1s
Posted by kennypowers
AR
Member since Mar 2009
633 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:39 am to
quote:

Then where are these doctors, surgeons, and other Healthcare professionals that are willing to donate their time to providing Healthcare services and extensive complex care?

Some of you are too stupid Im shocked you dont forget the breathe.


I'm not so sure people are confusing a for profit industry run amuck with slavery. The unfortunate reality is there are needless complexities involved today from an insurance and administrative perspective for the sake of profit. Think about the income and profit generated by UHC without providing a single ounce of healthcare themselves. They generated $450 BILLION dollars in revenue(only 70% of which was actually passed on to health care providers...not to confuse my previous statement) and $12.1 BILLION in profit. You don't think that's a problem?
Posted by Burt Reynolds
Monterey, CA
Member since Jul 2008
24773 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:40 am to
I work with Medicare and Medicaid premiums primarily so we the taxpayer are paying for them
Posted by kennypowers
AR
Member since Mar 2009
633 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:43 am to
quote:

I'll take it a step further. Medicare and Medicaid should play for GLP-1s


Medicare covers it now for like $50 a month.
Posted by Ingeniero
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2013
23611 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:43 am to
I know the cost is higher on the front end because we're now paying for millions of people to start GLP-1s, but wouldn't the health benefits mean we're paying less for their complications further down the line? If you're paying for them to take shots but it means you aren't paying for repeated hospitalizations and medication due to poor health, that's an overall win.
Posted by Burt Reynolds
Monterey, CA
Member since Jul 2008
24773 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:46 am to
quote:

I know the cost is higher on the front end because we're now paying for millions of people to start GLP-1s, but wouldn't the health benefits mean we're paying less for their complications further down the line? If you're paying for them to take shots but it means you aren't paying for repeated hospitalizations and medication due to poor health, that's an overall win.


Yep you are correct. It’s a little bit difficult to do that kind of medical economic analysis because you dont know if hospitalizations and er visits are going down because of the drug or something else but it is definitely reducing costs in other places

It will be a clear substantial cost benefit once we move all GLP1s to generic instead of brand.
Posted by CatfishJohn
Member since Jun 2020
22265 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:49 am to
quote:

I don't believe for a second there's not a drug that can dissolve arterial plaque. But it would destroy a multibillion industry overnight.


That's just not how it works. If a company invented this, it would print historical amounts of money. Money at levels never before seen in pharmaceutical industry. They aren't sitting on something like this.

And this would keep people alive longer in old age. During that time, they'd need other pharmaceuticals for other issues.
Posted by BluegrassBelle
RIP Hefty Lefty - 1981-2019
Member since Nov 2010
108989 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:49 am to
quote:

I work with Medicare and Medicaid premiums primarily so we the taxpayer are paying for them


And it’s likely saving us money by paying the GLP cost upfront but in a year or two reducing the cost of their blood pressure meds, their cholesterol meds, their cancer meds, more frequent ER/doc visits when obese, and all kinds of medical procedures that are tied to being obese.
Posted by Tiger Ryno
#WoF
Member since Feb 2007
108734 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:50 am to
No matter how much we reduce obesity health care costs will only go up
Posted by Tiger55
Gretna, LA
Member since Aug 2004
1484 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:52 am to
St Augustine

Trying to see how to get in touch with you to discuss something. Thanks
Posted by Burt Reynolds
Monterey, CA
Member since Jul 2008
24773 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 8:53 am to
quote:

No matter how much we reduce obesity health care costs will only go up


Correct. We can only do things to reduce the expense trend but it will never be negative. Covid was one of the only times there was negative trend
Posted by danilo
Member since Nov 2008
26330 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 9:00 am to
There will never be a cure for cancer
This post was edited on 8/21/26 at 9:00 am
Posted by Chucktown_Badger
The banks of the Ashley River
Member since May 2013
37590 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 9:00 am to
quote:

I work with Medicare and Medicaid premiums primarily so we the taxpayer are paying for them


For sure, just like we are every other medical/pharmaceutical advancement for which the benefits outweigh the cost/risk.
Posted by creeper
Member since Nov 2011
209 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 9:04 am to
Ivermectin and peptides FTW!
Posted by Chucktown_Badger
The banks of the Ashley River
Member since May 2013
37590 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 9:05 am to
quote:

Think about the income and profit generated by UHC without providing a single ounce of healthcare themselves. They generated $450 BILLION dollars in revenue(only 70% of which was actually passed on to health care providers...not to confuse my previous statement) and $12.1 BILLION in profit. You don't think that's a problem?


If people and companies think they are paying too much for a good or service they can not pay it or get that good or service elsewhere. That's the beauty of capitalism and why it is great for innovation, competition, and the consumer. Of course, the govt picking winners and meddling does the opposite of all those things.

I do love the tact often taken here with throwing out a big profit number and suggesting it's cruel and unusual. If companies should not be allowed to make a profit, who should get to decide what is reasonable? You? Government?

You simply do not have a RIGHT to a treatment, service, pharmaceutical product, etc, just like you don't have a right to anything else that requires someone else's time, effort, money, or innovation. Otherwise, let's all gang up on Apple and their $112 BILLION in profit last year.
This post was edited on 8/21/26 at 9:08 am
Posted by Chucktown_Badger
The banks of the Ashley River
Member since May 2013
37590 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 9:06 am to
quote:

That's just not how it works. If a company invented this, it would print historical amounts of money. Money at levels never before seen in pharmaceutical industry. They aren't sitting on something like this.

And this would keep people alive longer in old age. During that time, they'd need other pharmaceuticals for other issues.



I love it when the ole "they have the cure for cancer and are sitting on it" line inevitably comes out in these threads. If anyone wants to display their complete and utter lack of knowledge of how drug development, review, and approval works, that's the way to leave no doubt
Posted by Fun Bunch
New Orleans
Member since May 2008
131765 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 9:08 am to
quote:

There will never be a cure for cancer



Moderna's stock skyrocketed this week because their phase 3 trials of one pretty much does that in melanoma
Posted by Dixie2023
Member since Mar 2023
5724 posts
Posted on 8/21/26 at 9:10 am to
Funny. Because managed care denies things to actually help to prevent further problems. I’ve seen it happen to people. Most recent was a diabetic who had an auto insulin pump whose new insurer denied. She fell out from that and ended up in ICU. So they got to pay for that. Then they decided a pump is ok to approve.
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram