Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

classroom, learning, teaching, class, students

AI literacy isn’t just about jobs. Learn why schools should teach students to question AI outputs, verify claims, and think critically as citizens.

Getty Images, Rafa Fernandez Torres

AI Is Shaping Democracy. Are We Preparing Students?

Almost everyone I know is talking about artificial intelligence. Teacher friends say it helps with administrative tasks, then describe their frustration when students use it to complete assignments. Principals wonder whether teachers are using it effectively. Colleagues past and present worry about how it will shape their students’ lives. And among parents in my kids’ circles, the chatter is mostly about jobs: Do we need AI literacy to stay relevant at work? What does AI mean for our children’s future careers? How much should we trust it?

These questions matter, but I worry we’re missing the plot. AI literacy isn’t only about preparing students to work with AI. It’s about preparing them to live in a democracy increasingly shaped by it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Victorian style houses at Alamo Square in San Francisco, CA

Colourful vibrant Victorian style houses at Alamo Square in San Francisco, California, USA

Getty Images

Fund the Community DataBank

San Francisco residents need an organization that can follow public money and decisions before the damage is done. I propose a Community DataBank, beginning with Pacific Heights and Cow Hollow, supported by a modest, publicly approved allocation of our taxes. Residents should be able to find out what government is doing without requiring everyone to research City Hall.

My earlier proposal placed two desks outside the Mayor’s Office, staffed by neighborhood association members who would watch who goes in and out and follow the public business behind those visits. The DataBank would give those desks useful work and reliable records. A visitor’s presence would prompt a question; official documents would establish what actually happened.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person holding a "I VOTED" sticker
person holding white and blue round plastic container
Photo by Manny Becerra on Unsplash

AI, Elections and the Making of an Informed Electorate

In 1994, as a recent college graduate, I joined what was then Project Vote Smart (PVS), an organization that provided factual nonpartisan information about political candidates. Voters would call the PVS hotline to learn about specific candidates, and volunteers, myself among them, would answer their questions. More than three decades later, this type of information is available at our fingertips — but having easier access does not necessarily make us better informed.

I believed deeply then — and still do — in James Madison’s warning, contained in an 1822 letter to William T. Barry: “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.” If an educated electorate is essential to protecting democracy, helping people be informed voters felt like a valuable way to contribute.

Keep ReadingShow less
You Can’t Buy Authenticity

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed speaks during a campaign rally on November 01, 2026 in Detroit, Michigan

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

You Can’t Buy Authenticity

Elon Musk spent an estimated $474 million trying to keep Congress Republican. On Wednesday morning, he joked that his “election-interfering space lasers didn’t work this time.” Neither did the money.

There will be plenty of hot takes about Democratic strategy this week. I don’t buy most of them. This election wasn’t won in a war room. It was won by Americans who are fed up with the Trump agenda. Roughly three-quarters of voters told exit pollsters they were dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and, for the first time in a long time, they had candidates worth believing in. That second part is what’s sticking with me.

Keep ReadingShow less