Mounjaro UK price rise will trigger obesity relapse, say experts
The weight-loss jab, which is bought privately by 1.5 million people in the UK, will more than double in price next month — forcing patients off the drug if they can no longer afford it.
Its manufacturer, Eli Lilly, is increasing the list price for the maximum 15mg dose from £122 to £330 for a monthly pen, while the 5mg dose is rising from £92 to £180.
Pharmacies have warned that patients are in 'immense distress', with demand soaring as they stock up on Mounjaro before the price increase takes effect on September 1.
Professor Tim Spector, a nutrition expert at King's College London, warned that the sudden increase in price had exposed the flaws of relying on weight-loss jabs to lose weight.
He said: 'The price rise of the GLP-1 drugs comes at a tricky time for the million-plus Britons that have started taking the drugs. Any losses in weight they will have achieved will be reversed in just a few weeks, as their appetite kicks back in.
'People are being prompted to use these private networks of GLP-1 drugs without any real supervision, and, crucially, without any nutritional support.'
Spector, co-founder of the Zoe nutrition app, said that people who were taking weight-loss jabs should instead have been 're-educated about food and good eating habits long term'.
He added: 'It's a huge wasted opportunity that's going to get worse as the price for the consumer goes up, and therefore people are unlikely to stay on this long term. We're just going to be back to good old short-term diets, which will cycle people in and out of obesity.'
The price hike is taking place after President Trump demanded that pharmaceutical firms lower prices for American patients and stop other countries 'freeloading' off US firms.
Pharmacies said they were experiencing record demand and were helping people to switch from Mounjaro to Wegovy, a similar GLP-1 drug known as Ozempic when used for diabetes, as it is cheaper, although not thought to be as effective.
• Jon Yeomans: Mounjaro is a taste of the battle to come over drug prices
James O'Loan, the chief executive of the online pharmacy Chemist4U, said: 'The distressing news that prices are set to rise by up to 170 per cent with just two weeks' notice, in response to another aggressive initiative from Trump, is very troubling. It's caused immense distress to hundreds of thousands of UK patients on a weight loss journey, who worry all their hard-earned progress could be snatched away from them.'
Asda Online Doctor said: 'Following the announcement of steep price increases by the manufacturer Eli Lilly starting in September, we have seen an instant 350 per cent increase in demand. We are making all efforts to enable our existing patients to continue treatment and are actively prioritising them.
'However, this will be a difficult situation for many of our patients with affordability being a key aspect in the access and/or continuation of these services. Therefore we deeply regret this decision from Eli Lilly to increase prices, which will affect many patients. We remain committed to providing an excellent service to our patients at a fair price.'
• Mounjaro transformed me — but it had a huge effect on my family's life
Dr Leyla Hannbeck, chief executive of the Independent Pharmacies Association, representing thousands of community pharmacies, said: 'Our members up and down the country have been dealing with worried patients, many of whom are enquiring about stocking up before the price increase hits.
'There is a very real danger that the higher prices will see patients desperate for cheaper products turn to the, often unregulated, online market.'
Sandeep Dhami, a superintendent pharmacist at MW Phillips Chemists in the West Midlands, added: 'Patients on their weight-loss journeys are coming into pharmacies like mine angry and upset at the news of the price hike. Those on the highest doses, who will face the highest price hike are particularly concerned.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
12 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Shower gel advert banned for depicting black skin as 'problematic' and white skin as 'superior' by advertising watchdog
A shower gel advert has been banned for depicting black skin as 'problematic' and white skin as 'superior', the advertising watchdog has said. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned the ad after investigating complaints that it perpetuated a 'negative and offensive racial stereotype'. The Sanex shower gel ad, broadcast in June, depicted a black woman with red scratch marks and another covered with a cracked clay-like material. Over this, a voiceover said: 'To those who might scratch day and night. To those whose skin will feel dried out even by water.' Over scenes of a white woman the ad stated: 'Try to take a shower with the new Sanex skin therapy and its patented amino acid complex. For 24 hour hydration feel.' The ad ended with on-screen text and the voiceover adding: 'Relief could be as simple as a shower.' Colgate-Palmolive, which owns the Sanex brand, argued the depiction of diverse models in the ad was shown in a 'before and after' scenario to demonstrate their product was suitable for all, rather than as a comparison based on race or ethnicity. On that basis, it believed the ad did not perpetuate negative racial stereotypes and was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Clearcast, which approves or rejects ads for television broadcast, said the ad did not perpetuate negative racial stereotypes and instead demonstrated the product's inclusivity. The agency said one model with darker skin was depicted in a 'stylised and unrealistic way' to demonstrate dryness, but her skin tone was otherwise not a focal point. However the ASA said the use of different skin colours created a juxtaposition of black skin shown as itchy and dry in the 'before' scenes, and white skin shown as smoother in the 'after' scenes. The watchdog said: 'The ad was therefore structured in such a way that it was the black skin, depicted in association with itchy and dry skin, which was shown to be problematic and uncomfortable, whereas the white skin, depicted as smoother and clean after using the product, was shown successfully changed and resolved. 'We considered that could be interpreted as suggesting that white skin was superior to black skin.' The ASA added: 'Although we understood that this message was not the one intended and might appear coincidental or pass unnoticed by some viewers, we considered that the ad was likely to reinforce the negative and offensive racial stereotype that black skin was problematic and that white skin was superior. 'We concluded that the ad included a racial stereotype and was therefore likely to cause serious offence.' Colgate-Palmolive was approached for comment.
Evening Standard
14 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Disadvantaged white pupils have ‘particularly poor' education outcomes
Can these secret ingredients really have the same effect on weight loss as Ozempic and Mounjaro? Can asparagus, apples and eggs really mimic the effects of Ozempic?
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Major brand has advert banned for suggesting black skin is ‘problematic'
A Sanex shower gel television advertisement has been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for reinforcing an offensive racial stereotype. The watchdog ruled the ad, which suggested black skin was "problematic" and white skin "superior", must not air again. This followed two complaints that it perpetuated negative stereotypes about darker skin tones. The ad, seen in June, included a voiceover that said: 'To those who might scratch day and night. To those whose skin will feel dried out even by water,' alongside scenes of a black woman with red scratch marks and another covered with a cracked clay-like material. Alongside scenes of a white woman taking a shower with the product, the ad then stated: 'Try to take a shower with the new Sanex skin therapy and its patented amino acid complex. For 24 hour hydration feel.' The ad ended with on-screen text and the voiceover stating: 'Relief could be as simple as a shower.' Colgate-Palmolive, which owns the Sanex brand, said the depiction of diverse models in the ad, either experiencing skin discomfort or post-product relief, was shown in a 'before and after' scenario to show their product was suitable and effective for all, rather than as a comparison based on race or ethnicity. On that basis, it believed the ad did not perpetuate negative racial stereotypes and was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Clearcast, which approves or rejects ads for broadcast on television, said the ad did not perpetuate negative racial stereotypes and instead demonstrated the product's inclusivity. The agency said one model with darker skin was depicted in a 'stylised and unrealistic way' to demonstrate dryness, but her skin tone was otherwise not a focal point. A second model, also with darker skin, was shown with itchy skin, but this was portrayed through scratching visibly healthy skin and the resulting marks, and was therefore more about sensation than any visible skin condition. The ASA said the use of different skin colours was a means of portraying a 'before and after' of the product's use, which created a juxtaposition of black skin shown as itchy, dry and cracked in the 'before' scenes, and white skin shown as smoother skin in the 'after' scenes. The watchdog said: 'The ad was therefore structured in such a way that it was the black skin, depicted in association with itchy and dry skin, which was shown to be problematic and uncomfortable, whereas the white skin, depicted as smoother and clean after using the product, was shown successfully changed and resolved. 'We considered that could be interpreted as suggesting that white skin was superior to black skin.' The ASA added: 'Although we understood that this message was not the one intended and might appear coincidental or pass unnoticed by some viewers, we considered that the ad was likely to reinforce the negative and offensive racial stereotype that black skin was problematic and that white skin was superior. 'We concluded that the ad included a racial stereotype and was therefore likely to cause serious offence.' It further told Colgate-Palmolive 'to ensure they avoided causing serious offence on the grounds of race'.
