Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How the government can solve America's obesity epidemic

News

How the government can solve America's obesity epidemic
Getty Images

Pearl is a clinical professor of plastic surgery at the Stanford University School of Medicine and is on the faculty of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Dying younger. Living harder. Going broke. It is difficult to overstate the longitudinal effects of excess weight in America.


An estimated seven in ten Americans are overweight or obese. The combination, according to the National Institutes of Health, results in an estimated 300,000 preventable deaths per year with extreme obesity lowering life expectancy by 14 years on average.

Added weight not only makes everyday life more difficult, but it also produces serious health consequences that include cardiovascular disease, diabetes, musculoskeletal disorders and cancer. In total, obesity costs an estimated $260 billion annually in inpatient and outpatient care.

Whether weight gain is caused primarily by genetics, societal influences or individual will, scientists aren’t altogether sure. What’s clear, however, is that most efforts to lose weight ultimately fail.

New Hope In Diabetes Drugs

Ozempic, one of a new class of medications, has been shown in studies to spur significant weight loss. The others include Mounjaro, Rybelsus and Wegovy with several new (and convenient, pill-based) options in development.

A Heavy Price For Weight Loss

Last year, more than five million Americans were prescribed one of these drugs for weight reduction.

The annual price of treatment ranges from $12,000 (Mounjaro) to upwards of $16,000 per year (Wegovy). As a result, most users are either wealthy or have generous health-insurance coverage.

But as more Americans seek these medications for moderate weight loss, not diabetes, insurers have started clamping down. They’ve issued threatening letters to doctors, warning they’ll be referred to state regulatory boards for writing “off-label” prescriptions.

The Ozempic Paradox: Highly Effective But Unaffordable

Ozempic and other medications that help with weight loss are part of an ongoing national debate in which two competing truths collide.

The first truth is that these drugs work, leading to significant and sustained weight reduction: 14 to 25 pounds per individual on average during the medication course. And while they’re not a replacement for proper nutrition, exercise or healthier living, they do reduce the likelihood of heart attack, stroke and cancer.

Second, despite the medical opportunity at hand, making these drugs available to all 100 million obese American adults would prove cost prohibitive for businesses, private insurers and the government.

This means that the medications could drastically rollback the nation’s $260 billion in obesity-related medical expenses each year, but prescribing them at today’s prices would cost more than $1.5 trillion annually—increasing national healthcare expenditures by as much as 25 percent.

What’s more, these medications are considered “forever drugs,” requiring users to either maintain their dosage or regain most of the weight they lost.

Insurers are eager to draw a line between those seeking prescriptions for appearance’s sake and those at heightened risk of disease or death. They’re happy to cover the latter but, as with cosmetic surgery, insurers believe patients should foot the bill for the former.

Lost in this debate is an important question: Why not figure out how to make these lifesaving drugs broadly available and affordable?

The U.S. Government Can Lead The Way

With hundreds of thousands of obesity-related deaths each year, the magnitude of the problem qualifies as an “epidemic” and justifies forceful government intervention.

The current administration, with congressional approval, could initiate a nationwide campaign to fight obesity, similar to Operation Warp Speed. The program, with a $10 billion upfront investment, led to the speedy development of a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine. The government then was able to purchase more than one billion doses at one-third the cost of the vaccine’s current list price.

Here’s how the administration could replicate Operation Warp Speed to fight the obesity epidemic without breaking the bank.

Operation: Slim Provisions

The government would invest $4 billion up front— twice the average R&D cost to bring a new drug to market.

In return for funding and a ten year contract, the first drugmaker to develop a safe and effective weight-loss drug would be required to sell that medication back to the government at $40 per dose (or $2,000 per patient/year), significantly below the retail price of Ozempic and similar drugs. The winning pharma company would benefit financially, earning up to $1.2 trillion in sales over the contract’s lifetime without having to shoulder R&D costs.

With the new medication in hand, government-sponsored health programs, Medicaid and Medicare, would make it available to all obese enrollees (roughly 60 million people) for the next decade.

And by providing the drug to more than half of all obese adults, the government would reduce medical expenses by up to $130 billion annually or $1.3 trillion over 10 years, making the effort cost-neutral for American taxpayers.

Risks vs. Rewards

The only financial risk to the government (outside of defending likely lawsuits) would be failing in its search for a new drug, thus wasting the

$4 billion of taxpayer money. But that’s a relatively insignificant sum compared to the potential healthcare benefits.

The role of government is to protect the health and financial well-being of the nation. Fulfilling that function led to a lifesaving Covid-19 vaccine. Doing so again is the best option our nation has to address America’s growing obesity epidemic.


Read More

news video camera
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism

When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.

On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”

Keep ReadingShow less
US Senate candidate Dan Osborn

Nebraska Independent US Senate candidate Dan Osborn.

Image obtained from YouTube

7 Independent Campaigns to Watch in the Final Days of the Midterms

Election Day on November 3, here are the seven independent campaigns we’ve followed closely, four for the Senate and three for the House, ranked by how competitive they are.

Fundraising figures are full-cycle totals from FEC reports, through the date noted for each race. Prediction-market odds come from Kalshi and were pulled on 10/23. Polls are pulled from the aggregated New York Times pages, with several low-quality polls highlighted by campaigns left out.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote

Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote inserted into a grey cardboard ballot box slot.

Getty Images

The First Amendment Does Not Belong to Political Parties

In a recent essay in Life & Liberty, Robert G. Natelson argues that open primaries may violate the First Amendment rights of political parties by allowing people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. His argument starts with the rights of the party. The more fundamental question is whether it starts in the right place at all: When a state conducts a primary election, whose rights are we even talking about?

Natelson’s answer is primarily the rights of political parties. He argues that because parties have a First Amendment right to decide with whom they associate, the government cannot require them to allow people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. He relies on a number of Supreme Court decisions involving political parties and places particular weight on National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. But in doing so, he moves too quickly past the most important fact in the debate: a state primary is an election conducted by the government, not a private meeting of a political organization.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media

White House communications aide Danielle Alvarez (R) films with her phone as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media as he departs on the South Lawn of the White House on October 23, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Finn Gomez/Getty Images

Trump’s Arch Plan Defies Law and Warps D.C.’s Historic Core

The Trump Arch construction controversy is the latest vanity project by Donald Trump using taxpayer money without Congressional approval, placing his ego-based physical stamp on not only American historical architecture but also the American psyche. With no good reason for constructing this arch, it’s an act of self-aggrandizement meant to make him look powerful and important. The project is unconstitutional, illegal, and patently un-American. Three Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian have also filed a lawsuit against it.

Like all other actors in government, executive agencies, like the National Park Service, must follow the rule of law and respect ‘separation of powers’ established by the U.S. Constitution. This means following the laws enacted by Congress, which has the power to distribute public funds and determine how they are spent, not the Executive Branch, including the President.

Keep ReadingShow less