logo
Major insurance changes are coming to GLP-1 drugs for weight loss. Here's how that could affect patients

Major insurance changes are coming to GLP-1 drugs for weight loss. Here's how that could affect patients

CNN4 hours ago
Prescription drugs
Food & health
Chronic diseasesFacebookTweetLink
Follow
Last week, Tara Eacobacci had an appointment with her doctor that was devoted exclusively to the topic of health insurance. A major change to her prescription benefits meant the medication she was using to manage her weight – a treatment that had taken years of trial and error to get right – would no longer be covered by insurance.
'I'm completely outraged,' Eacobacci said. 'It's not only causing me stress, but it is making me angry.'
Starting Tuesday, CVS Caremark – a major pharmacy benefit manager that serves as a middleman for health insurers, large employers and other payers to manage their prescription drug plans – will stop covering Eli Lilly's Zepbound, a blockbuster GLP-1 drug that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since November 2023 for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or who are overweight.
'This change is happening because there's another covered medication that's safe and effective for your condition and may cost less,' CVS Caremark said in a letter sent in May to its patients using Zepbound. 'Please keep in mind, if you refill your current medication on or after 7/1/2025, you'll need to pay the full cost.'
Wegovy, the GLP-1 medication to treat obesity from Lilly competitor Novo Nordisk, will still be covered under plans managed by CVS Caremark, along with a few other medications that are generally less effective.
CVS says the decision to cover Wegovy and exclude Zepbound is 'forcing the drug manufacturers to compete with one another' and will encourage both Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk to lower prices for their products in the US.
'The egregiously high list prices set by drug manufacturers of GLP-1s for weight loss are the single biggest barrier to patient access,' CVS Health said in a statement. 'Our formulary strategy maintains clinically appropriate coverage while using competition to drive lower costs.'
But pharmacy benefit managers – of which CVS Caremark is one of the largest – have faced scrutiny for their role in rising drug costs in the US.
When it comes to weight loss, providers and patients argue that GLP-1 medications are not a one-for-one swap and that volatile insurance coverage contradicts the science and experience of people managing obesity as a chronic disease.
'Largely across society, we don't accept obesity as a long-term chronic disease, and we're still looking for quick fixes and quick solutions where that's not the reality of the biology and disease process. The mindsets have not caught up with the science yet,' said Dr. Tracy Zvenyach, director of policy strategy and alliances at the Obesity Action Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group.
'If decision-makers do not understand obesity to be a long-term chronic disease, that's when we see these exclusionary policies or these very, very cumbersome utilization management practices that really just set up one barrier after another to prevent people from getting the care that they need. It's unacceptable. We don't do that with other chronic diseases.'
It takes time to develop a treatment plan with GLP-1 drugs that works with each individual patient, said Dr. Jody Dushay, an endocrinologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Some people might have an allergic reaction at the injection site for one medication or have worse side effects – such as severe constipation, nausea or stomach pain – with one than another.
Adapting to a change in medication will often interrupt a patient's weight-loss trajectory, she said, and the trial-and-error could create a lot of waste for medications that were in shortage not long ago.
'As soon as these announcements [about insurance coverage changes] come out, I get flooded with messages from patients,' she said. 'It's very stressful for patients who have been doing really well, who are having good tolerance and feel like they have hit their stride in terms of medication, nutrition and exercise. Everything is heading in the right direction, and then having to switch can be very disruptive.'
When Dushay is looking through a patient's medical chart, she says, her stomach churns when she sees the little box that indicates their insurance information.
'In this field of weight management, that little teeny part of the chart dictates so much of their care. For me, it's unprecedented in terms of how much insurance matters for the clinical care that I'm providing and the choices that I have,' she said.
And discussing strategies to manage insurance-mandated changes in treatment infringes on clinical care.
'There is barely time to ask the patient how they are feeling, about side effects and weight loss and general health updates,' Dushay said. 'There is a loss of time for patient care and a huge increase in time burden outside the visit for doctors and pharmacists.'
Another major insurance change coming next year will affect another large swath of Dushay's patients: In January, BCBS Massachusetts will be excluding all GLP-1s from coverage for treatment of obesity, reserving coverage for these drugs only when indicated to treat type 2 diabetes.
'The nation is facing an obesity crisis. That's why we work hard to support our members achieve a healthy weight by improving access to nutritious food, physical activity programs, and quality clinical care when needed,' David Merritt, senior vice president of external affairs for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, said in a statement. 'We share the enthusiasm for the real weight loss success experienced by the countless patients taking GLP-1s. As with any new medication, there is more to learn to ensure patients are set up for success. Last year, we published a study that found roughly 60% of people do not stay on GLP-1s long enough to see meaningful weight loss. While adherence is improving, we need more data to ensure these costly medications deliver long-term value for patients and the health care system.'
Zepbound and Wegovy are both effective at treating obesity and approved by the FDA to do so, but there are differences.
Studies have found that people who used tirzepatide injections such as Zepbound lost more weight and were more likely to reach specific weight loss targets than those using semaglutide medications such as Wegovy. The two drugs have a different set of broader indications, with Zepbound also approved to treat sleep apnea in people with obesity, for example. Side effects can vary, too, sometimes making one medication more tolerable than the another.
People who have had success with Zepbound may be able to file for an exception after the insurance coverage changes, but CVS Caremark has limited options to proactively plan for the change, leaving many patients angry and concerned about their health and well-being.
For Eacobacci, the insurance changes and the sentiment behind them are enraging – and based in prejudice.
CVS Caremark had required that she try multiple alternate treatments and prove that they didn't work before she was approved for Zepbound this year. When she was on Wegovy, she said, her A1C glucose levels started to rise close to prediabetic levels despite consistent diet and exercise habits. This all changed once she started Zepbound.
'I feel better. I'm not as bloated. My movement is definitely different. I fit into my clothes, but I also feel validated – because all of these years, doctors say to you, 'Oh, you can't eat all that cake and candy,' and they don't believe that you're not,' Eacobacci said. 'The medication actually validated some of this. Like, 'hey, I do need support. I can't do this on my own as much as I'm trying.' '
Medication changes could have unnecessarily dangerous impacts on physical health – Eacobacci said she gained 10 pounds and saw her A1C levels spike in just one month without the medication – as well as mental health.
'Weight stigma and bias has affected us nationwide,' said Eacobacci, who is worried about many people she knows who have felt depressed after the hearing the news about changes in insurance coverage. 'You made me jump through hoops. I got the prior authorization you required for me, and now you're – mid-year – taking it away from me is so impactful that it should be illegal.'
Although coverage exceptions may be an option, the appeals process takes time.
'It gets really, really frustrating to have to justify what I want to do all the time just because of money,' Dushay said.
For people who do lose coverage of Zepbound, drugmaker Eli Lilly has expanded access through LillyDirect, a company platform that helps coordinate telehealth services and fill prescriptions for patients who pay out-of-pocket. Single-dose vials are available for $499 per month through the LillyDirect Zepbound Self Pay Journey Program, with the highest doses available beginning July 7.
'We're confident in Zepbound's performance and remain committed to ensuring patients have access to the treatment they need,' Lilly said in a statement.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Toxic Positivity: The Unwelcome Companion in My Breast Cancer Journey
Toxic Positivity: The Unwelcome Companion in My Breast Cancer Journey

WebMD

time36 minutes ago

  • WebMD

Toxic Positivity: The Unwelcome Companion in My Breast Cancer Journey

Before entering the world of cancer, I had never heard of toxic positivity. Nor did I ever imagine that positivity could be a bad thing. Growing up, I was surrounded by sayings that reinforced a positive mindset, like 'mind over matter' and 'be positive – things will work out.' Positivity seemed like the ultimate virtue. So how could it possibly become toxic? What Is Toxic Positivity? Toxic positivity is the overgeneralization of a positive mindset to the point where it dismisses or invalidates someone's emotions and experiences. It often manifests when someone shares their struggles and is met with phrases encouraging them to 'stay cheerful' or 'look on the bright side.' While these responses may seem well-meaning, they can feel dismissive and even harmful. My First Encounter With Toxic Positivity I first encountered toxic positivity during the early days of my breast cancer diagnosis. Some of the things people said to me included: 'You should be happy it's just breast cancer.' 'Oh, it's just breast cancer, you'll be fine.' 'At least it's not stage 4.' These comments left me upset and confused. How could I be happy? What did they mean by 'just' breast cancer? At the time, I didn't fully understand why anyone would say such things. As I continued my journey, I encountered even more examples of toxic positivity. One particularly common remark within the breast cancer community is, 'At least you get a free boob job out of it.' Yes, someone actually said this to me personally, and sadly, I've heard it echoed by others as well. What I've Learned About Toxic Positivity Through my experience, I've realized that too often, people urge us to 'stay positive' or 'smile – things will get better.' But they're wrong. I don't believe these comments come from a place of malice. Instead, I think people genuinely believe they're helping. Most of the time, these remarks stem from discomfort with pain and a desire to 'fix' it with positivity. However, in moments of vulnerability, it's important not to sugarcoat reality. Being true to yourself – even when it's messy or uncomfortable – is vital. Suppressing emotions can harm your mental well-being, both in the moment and over time. It's crucial to allow yourself to feel all your emotions fully and authentically. What Support Really Helped The most meaningful support I received during my journey came from loved ones who were simply present for me. Whether it was a visit, a text, or a call, their presence meant everything. Time is the most precious gift someone can give. It's irreplaceable. Knowing someone was willing to share that with me was invaluable. Another form of support I highly recommend is the act of listening – without interruptions, suggestions, or platitudes. It's natural to want to ease someone's pain, but in moments when someone is pouring their heart out, silence speaks louder than words. Sometimes, all I needed was someone to hold my hand and share the space with me. Positivity often stems from a place of good intentions, but can inadvertently cause harm. If you're supporting someone through a difficult time, remember that you don't need to have all the answers. Simply being there, offering your time and presence, and allowing space for raw, unfiltered emotions can be the greatest gift of all.

Nightmares? It Might Be Something You Ate
Nightmares? It Might Be Something You Ate

Medscape

timean hour ago

  • Medscape

Nightmares? It Might Be Something You Ate

This transcript has been edited for clarity. Welcome to Impact Factor , your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I'm Dr F. Perry Wilson from the Yale School of Medicine. When the ghost of Jacob Marley sits across from Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol , he observes that the miser doesn't believe in him. Scrooge, with forced bravado, says he's right. The ghost may be in actuality, 'an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese… There's more of gravy than of grave about you!' And so we see that, even in 1843, people believed that there was some link between the food we eat and the nightmares that plague us at the witching hour. But… is it true? Does the dinner plate affect the nightmare state? Does a late-night snack make your dreams more wack? The inspiration for today's little reverie is a perplexingly-entitled study, 'More dreams of the rarebit fiend: food sensitivity and dietary correlates of sleep and dreaming,' appearing in Frontiers in Psychology . To save you the googling, 'dreams of the rarebit fiend' were a series of comics published in the early 1900s which would depict a nightmare of a poor individual who would wake in the last panel and lament eating some food or another. Rarebit is a cheese-on-toast dish which, if you've never had it, can still be found at Mory's here in New Haven. In any case, I think the Scrooge reference is a bit more familiar than the comic, but maybe the Dickens estate is litigious. Before we dig into this study, let's think through what mechanisms there may be for food to impact dreaming. Is there biologic plausibility here? One hypothesis, the 'food specific effects' hypothesis, suggests that certain foods have a chemical or chemicals that directly impact dreaming. There is precedence for this — certain drugs, for example, are notorious for causing weird dreams. I was on mefloquine traveling in Africa once, and I still remember the surreal dreams I had on the antimalarial. Planes flying backward against an orange-colored sky. Weird stuff. There's also the 'food distress' hypothesis. This is the idea that certain foods hurt us a bit. Maybe they are spicy or make us gassy or whatever, and it's actually that pain or discomfort that prompts the bad dreams. Finally, we have the 'sleep-effects' hypothesis, which is the idea that certain foods decrease the quality of our sleep — like coffee or alcohol. And that poor sleep quality predisposes to bad dreams. So we have a number of ways that it is plausible that food may impact your dreaming… but does it? To try to figure this out, the researchers conducted a fairly detailed survey study. More than 1000 individuals — mostly undergraduate students, mostly women — were surveyed. While they were relatively healthy overall, 13.8% reported having a medical condition and 17.1% a psychiatric condition. The average PHQ4 score for anxiety and depression was 9.5 — which is in the mild-to-moderate range: typical of modern 20-somethings. It's also worth noting that 32.4% reported sensitivity to some type of food. Nearly one third of participants reported a high frequency of recalled nightmares — more than one per week — and women tended to recall more dreams and had more nightmares than men. Did these individuals feel like what they ate affected their dreaming? Not really. Just 59 individuals, (5.5%) said that they thought there was any relationship between the food they ate and the qualia of their dreams. That said, those 59 people were much more likely to have frequent nightmares. This is notably lower than the 17.8% of individuals who said food affected their dreaming in the author's prior study which was published a decade ago. That study had a smaller sample size but still focused on undergraduate students, so I think there is comparability here. We have a dramatic reduction in the perception of a link between food and dreaming. We'll get to whether there is a real link in a minute, but why are younger people less likely to believe this these days? We can only guess. It might be a secular trend towards more data-driven, scientific, or at least quasi-scientific explanations of phenomena. The food/dream hypothesis does give old-wives-tale vibes, right? Perhaps the relevance of this idea has decreased in the public consciousness as food safety has increased. Or maybe kids these days have inputs into their brains that are way more potent than the slowly digesting cheese steak in their stomachs. In any case, the researchers asked the 59 people who did feel that food affected their dreaming which types of food had the largest effects. In terms of increasing 'disturbing' dream content, sweets and dairy topped the list. In terms of leading to more pleasant dreams, fruit, vegetables, and herbal tea were up there. The fact that there was some consistency here lends modest support to the food-specific effect hypothesis. Maybe there is a chemical in dairy foods that gives you bad dreams. If so, Liz Lemon should not be working on her night cheese. And for the three of you who get that reference, I salute you. What about the food distress hypothesis? I think the data is a bit stronger here. People who were lactose-intolerant, for instance, had a higher frequency of nightmares, even if they didn't consciously believe that food intake affected dreaming. When the authors dug down into that association, they found that controlling for gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms eliminated the observed relationship. In other words, the data suggests that the reason people who are lactose intolerant have more nightmares is because people who are lactose intolerant have more GI upset. This is decent evidence for that food-distress hypothesis. Finally, that sleep-effects hypothesis. Lactose intolerance was associated with worse sleep, but a lot of that effect was mediated through GI upset. So, it seems to me that, if there is any relationship between food and dreaming, it's probably due to the distress that some food causes you as you're sleeping. Which means, of course, that Scrooge was right. A bit of underdone potato can lead to visions of fettered apparitions chastising you for the chains you forge in life. And though it ended up working out for old Ebenezer, I think most of us would like to avoid nightmares if possible. In addition to the suggestion that food sensitivities can worsen nightmares, the researchers found that nightmares were more common among people who frequently ate late at night and those who had underlying medical or psychiatric conditions. In brief, there might be some wisdom contained in the old wives' tales. For a restful and ghost-free night's sleep, it's likely best to slumber without a full belly and to avoid those foods that (for you) cause distress. As for Dickens, he was famously an insomniac, spending long nights walking the streets of London. Staying wide awake all night also avoids nightmares, but I wouldn't recommend it.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store