• Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
Top Stocks Insider
  • News
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
  • Investing
  • Stock
No Result
View All Result
  • News
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
  • Investing
  • Stock
No Result
View All Result
Top Stocks Insider
No Result
View All Result
Home Investing

Government Should Experiment with Eliminating Patient Barriers, Not with Covering Ozempic

by
August 11, 2025
in Investing
0
Government Should Experiment with Eliminating Patient Barriers, Not with Covering Ozempic
0
SHARES
0
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Akiva Malamet, Bautista Vivanco, and Michael F. Cannon

The Trump administration is planning to expand Medicare and Medicaid coverage of expensive weight-loss drugs like Ozempic under a five-year experiment, according to documents the Washington Post obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

While Ozempic and other GLP‑1 drugs are great at helping patients lose weight (among many other promising uses), these impressive medications come with an impressive price tag. For those paying out of pocket, a month’s supply can cost around $1,000.

Congress prohibits Medicare from subsidizing anti-obesity medications but allows GLP‑1 drugs for the treatment of diabetes and cardiovascular disease (a particularly vulnerable subset of its beneficiary population). The Congressional Budget Office studied the budgetary impact of authorizing Medicare to subsidize anti-obesity medications. It concluded that subsidizing GLP‑1 drugs for obesity would have a net cost to taxpayers of $31.5 billion between 2026 and 2034.

Trump is not alone in trying to irresponsibly expand spending this way. Back in 2024, the lame duck Biden administration proposed doing the same thing. As one of us (Cannon) wrote at the time: “If Medicare bureaucrats finalize this proposal, it would not merely “allow” subsidies. It would compel taxpayers to finance them through Medicare and Medicaid, contrary to federal law and the Constitution.”

Cannon also notes that the government could increase access to these drugs; not by subsidizing them, but by getting out of the way:

“In the meantime, the federal government can increase access to GLP-1s simply by eliminating unnecessary regulation — specifically, regulations requiring consumers to obtain prescriptions before purchasing them.”

More recently, our colleague Jeffrey Singer argued that Congress can and should eliminate FDA barriers for compounding pharmacies. Singer also emphasized the benefits of removing prescription requirements. Combined, these reforms would significantly increase competition and render GLP-1s more accessible.

In a competitive market, price-sensitive patients put downward pressure on the prices of the medical goods and services they need or want. Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance create multiple levels of separation between patients and the price of medical goods and services. The more insensitive patients are to the price of care, the less pressure they put on providers to reduce prices. This makes health care more expensive and less accessible for everyone.

For example, when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated that most health insurance plans cover all FDA-approved contraception without any cost-sharing, prices for hormones and oral contraceptives skyrocketed.

Authorizing both Medicare and Medicaid to expand GLP‑1 subsidies would add even more fat to our already bloated and indebted government, all the while distorting important price signals in the pharmaceutical market. Such price signals, combined with greater price sensitivity among consumers, are key to making health care more affordable, accessible, and universal, especially for patients most in need.

For more on this topic, read Cannon’s chapter in Cato’s “The War on Prices” to learn about how government price fixing is the rule in U.S. health care, and “Drug Reformation,” on how prescription requirements raise prices and limit access.

Previous Post

The New Anti-Communists: Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War

Next Post

Oregon’s Psilocybin Experiment: The Downsides of Partial Legalization

Next Post
Oregon’s Psilocybin Experiment: The Downsides of Partial Legalization

Oregon's Psilocybin Experiment: The Downsides of Partial Legalization

    Fill Out & Get More Relevant News


    Stay ahead of the market and unlock exclusive trading insights & timely news. We value your privacy - your information is secure, and you can unsubscribe anytime. Gain an edge with hand-picked trading opportunities, stay informed with market-moving updates, and learn from expert tips & strategies.

    Disclaimer: TopStocksInsider.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively "The Company") do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Copyright © 2024 TopStocksInsider. All Rights Reserved.

    No Result
    View All Result
    • News
    • Economy
    • Editor’s Pick
    • Investing
    • Stock

    Copyright © 2024 TopStocksInsider. All Rights Reserved.