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

U.S. Capitol.
As government shutdowns drag on, a novel idea emerges: use arbitration to break congressional gridlock and fix America’s broken budget process.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Congress's productive 2025 (And don't let anyone tell you otherwise)

The media loves to tell you your government isn't working, even when it is. Don't let anyone tell you 2025 was an unproductive year for Congress. [Edit: To clarify, I don't mean the government is working for you.]

1,976 pages of new law

At 1,976 pages of new law enacted since President Trump took office, including an increase of the national debt limit by $4 trillion, any journalist telling you not much happened in Congress this year is sleeping on the job.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone using an AI chatbot on their phone.

AI-powered wellness tools promise care at work, but raise serious questions about consent, surveillance, and employee autonomy.

Getty Images, d3sign

Why Workplace Wellbeing AI Needs a New Ethics of Consent

Across the U.S. and globally, employers—including corporations, healthcare systems, universities, and nonprofits—are increasing investment in worker well-being. The global corporate wellness market reached $53.5 billion in sales in 2024, with North America leading adoption. Corporate wellness programs now use AI to monitor stress, track burnout risk, or recommend personalized interventions.

Vendors offering AI-enabled well-being platforms, chatbots, and stress-tracking tools are rapidly expanding. Chatbots such as Woebot and Wysa are increasingly integrated into workplace wellness programs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Women holding signs to defend diversity at Havard

Harvard students joined in a rally protesting the Supreme Courts ruling against affirmative action in 2023.

Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Diversity Has Become a Dirty Word. It Doesn’t Have to Be.

I have an identical twin sister. Although our faces can unlock each other’s iPhones, even the two of us are not exactly the same. If identical twins can differ, wouldn’t most people be different too? Why is diversity considered a bad word?

Like me, my twin sister is in computing, yet we are unique in many ways. She works in industry, while I am in academia. She’s allergic to guinea pigs, while I had pet guinea pigs (yep, that’s how she found out). Even our voices aren’t the same. As a kid, I was definitely the chattier one, while she loved taking walks together in silence (which, of course, drove me crazy).

Keep ReadingShow less
The Domestic Sting: Why the Tariff Bill is Arriving at the American Door
photo of dollar coins and banknotes
Photo by Mathieu Turle on Unsplash

The Domestic Sting: Why the Tariff Bill is Arriving at the American Door

America's tariff experiment, now nearly a year old, is proving more painful than its architects anticipated. What began as a bold stroke to shield domestic industries and force concessions from trading partners has instead delivered a slow-burning rise in prices, complicating the Federal Reserve's battle against inflation. As the policy grinds on, economists warn that the real damage lies ahead, with consumers and businesses absorbing costs that erode purchasing power and economic momentum. This is not the quick victory promised but a protracted burden that risks entrenching higher prices just as the economy seeks stability.

The tariffs, rolled out in phases since early March 2025, have jacked up the average import duty from 2 percent to around 17 percent. Imported goods prices have climbed 4 percent since then, outpacing the 2 percent rise in domestic equivalents. Items like coffee, which the United States cannot produce at scale, have seen the sharpest hikes, alongside products from heavily penalized countries such as China. Retailers and importers, far from passing all costs abroad as hoped, have shouldered much of the load initially, limiting immediate sticker shock. Yet daily pricing data from major chains reveal a creeping pass-through: imported goods up 5 percent overall, domestic up 2.5 percent. Cautious sellers absorb some hit to avoid losing market share, but this restraint is fading as tariffs are embedded in supply chains.

Keep ReadingShow less