Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How Congress can quickly make Ozempic, Wegovy affordable

Wegovy box
Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Pearl, the author of “ ChatGPT, MD,” teaches at both the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

A whopping one in eight U.S. adults have taken GLP-1 drugs like Wegovy and Ozempic for weight loss and related conditions. Their popularity and efficacy have sparked a prescription-writing frenzy in recent years, leaving both medications on the Food and Drug Administration's drug shortage list since May 2023.


But even when the supply rebounds, access to these drugs will remain out of reach for the majority of Americans. That’s because brand-name versions of the drugs range from $11,000 to $16,000 a year, prices that are unaffordable for most people.

Attempts to control prices through legislation face significant hurdles, both in the divided halls of Congress and in the courts, where determined legal challengers await. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, hopes that applying pressure at upcoming hearings will force Novo Nordisk, maker of Wegovy and Ozempic, to lower prices voluntarily. History shows that pharmaceutical companies rarely bend on prices, even in the face of public scrutiny.

Fortunately, Congress can implement a straightforward solution to make these drugs affordable, thereby improving the nation’s financial and physical health. Before explaining that strategy, here’s why our nation needs effective, affordable and available weight-loss medication.

Framing the obesity epidemic

Around 42 percent of American adults are obese, putting them at dramatically elevated risk for a host of complications: diabetes, heart disease, kidney failure, leg amputation, cancer and severe musculoskeletal problems. The economic impact of obesity is staggering, with related health care costs estimated to be $260 billion annually.

For decades, health experts have pleaded with Americans to exercise more, eat better, and make lifestyle improvements while urging lawmakers to regulate food and address the “social determinants of health” that lead to excess weight gain. Currently, billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on government-run nutrition and exercise campaigns — on top of the $190 billion Americans spend on weight loss products, programs and supplements.

Despite these extensive efforts and expenditures, obesity rates continue to climb, as do the associated consequences, contributing to as many as 500,000 preventable deaths every year.

The outsized promise of GLP-1 drugs

Studies show that all GLP-1 drugs lead to major weight loss, averaging 15 percent of a user’s body mass. And when obese individuals combine regular exercise with semaglutide, the active ingredient in Wegovy, they shed an average of 34 pounds.

Beyond weight loss, GLP-1 medications have been shown to reduce the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular events, prevent kidney failure and potentially improve cognitive function in patients with Alzheimer’s.

Despite all the known and potential benefits, the high price of weight-loss medications forces insurers and employer health plans to limit coverage, leaving many patients without access to these beneficial solutions.

The current financial burden

The cost of providing 100 percent of obese Americans with GLP-1 medications would surpass $1 trillion a year, even with drug rebates. For perspective, that’s more than twice what Americans spend on all prescription drugs annually. Moreover, that figure dwarfs the $260 billion in projected savings if obesity were eradicated.

And because patients who stop taking the medication regain an average of two-thirds of the weight they’ve lost, that trillion-dollar annual cost would persist indefinitely. From the vantage of the U.S. health care system, this ongoing expense (an estimated 25 percent annual bump in total health care spending) would strain funding for other vital components of care, including hospitals and clinicians. It would also drive insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs through the roof.

A recent report from Sanders’ office highlighted the stark disparity in global pricing for GLP-1 medications: Americans pay over $1,300 for a 28-day supply of Wegovy while patients pay far less in countries like Denmark ($186), Germany ($137) and the United Kingdom ($92).

This is because nearly all national governments, except for the United States, negotiate the price of prescription medications, rather than allowing drug companies to charge whatever they deem best for their shareholders.

The hidden truth

Contrary to what people might assume, these drugs are not expensive to make. A team of Yale and Harvard scientists determined that semaglutide can be manufactured for less than $5 per month.

In May 2024, telehealth company Hims & Hers began selling a compounded (pharmacist created) version of the GLP-1 drug semaglutide for $199 per month, about 85 percent less than the brand names Wegovy and Ozempic. This reflects a profitable, but more appropriate, price point.

Hims & Hers can sell its version of these patented weight-loss drugs because Congress has authorized the compounding and sale of a patented drug when there is an FDA-determined drug shortage. However, once the GLP-1 shortage is resolved, companies like Hims & Hers will be required to cease production. This will compromise the health of current users and price out many more Americans still struggling to lose weight.

A creative solution for the FDA and Congress

Congress can make these lifesaving weight loss medications affordable for all eligible Americans by expanding the FDA’s definition of “drug shortage.” Whereas “shortage” currently refers only to inadequate supply, a more modern definition would include medications that are unaffordable and therefore inaccessible to millions of people.

By amending the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, this expanded definition would allow compounded versions to remain available at a reasonable price, even when weight-loss drug manufacturers increase production.

The reason drug manufacturers price GLP-1s at $10,000 to $16,000 a year has little to do with research and development, overhead, or manufacturing costs. The reason is simple: greed.

Such pricing strategies might be tolerable in other industries, but when the health of tens of millions of Americans is at risk, Congress has an obligation to act. Expanding the definition of “shortage” would break the monopolistic hold of current manufacturers, improve public health, save lives and incentivize GLP-1 manufacturers to reduce prices. The time for legislative action is now.


Read More

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less