GLP-1 Cost Per Employee Per Month: What Employers Actually Pay in 2026

Each continuously treated weight-loss GLP-1 user per 100 enrolled employees adds $4.88 to $7.77 in drug cost per employee per month in our current-input model. That is the cleanest planning rule we found for the GLP-1 cost per employee per month, before dispensing or service fees, program costs, and employee cost sharing.

A June 2026 peer-reviewed employer-plan study estimated $9.23 per member per month in incremental cost at its 2025 price assumption. The closest directly observed public employee-denominator benchmark we located is $46.76 per employee per month for anti-obesity agents in Q4 2024 among AssuredPartners plans that allowed coverage.

Those three figures are not in conflict. One is our marginal PEPM model, one is modeled PMPM, and one is observed PEPM among covering plans. The denominator and cost basis change the answer.

GLP-1 cost per employee per month: the 2026 answer in three layers

There is no single public national GLP-1 PEPM average. The useful answer has three layers: a reproducible planning rule, a peer-reviewed member-level estimate, and an observed employee-level benchmark from one consultant’s covering plans. Keep the layers separate.

Sources: Shahzad et al., JAMA Health Forum, June 26, 2026; AssuredPartners, GLP-1 Cost Effectiveness for Employer Sponsored Health Plans, February 20, 2025; WPG Research Team, Employer GLP-1 PEPM Model v1.0. Verified August 1, 2026.

The number most employers need for a first-pass budget

The marginal rule is linear: one continuous user per 100 employees costs about $5 to $8 PEPM. Five continuous users per 100 cost about $24 to $39 PEPM. Multiply PEPM by enrolled employees and by 12 for the annual budget.

Source: WPG Research Team, Employer GLP-1 PEPM Model v1.0. Lilly input: $449 per Zepbound KwikPen supplied to participating network pharmacies through Lilly Employer Connect; Lilly says each pen delivers four weekly injections, so the model treats it as 28 days. ICER input: $6,829 estimated annual net price for injectable semaglutide, equal to $569.08 per average calendar month when divided by 12. EBRI inputs: $617 for Wegovy, $725 for Zepbound, and $766 for Saxenda per 30-day supply, net of rebates and discounts. Calendar normalization uses 365.25 ÷ 12 = 30.4375 average days per month. Assumes no employee cost share and excludes dispensing, service, program, and administration fees. Lilly says final employer cost varies with the pharmacy, program administrator, and fee arrangement. Verified August 1, 2026.

At least six different quantities routinely get compressed into the phrase “monthly GLP-1 cost”: a per-treated-person fill price; a calendar-month cost for one continuously treated person; PEPM among plans that cover anti-obesity drugs; PEPM across a whole employer book including non-covering plans; PMPM across all covered members including dependents; and modeled incremental PMPM attributed to a coverage decision. The numbers can all be accurate and still be unusable together.

EBRI’s $617–$766 figures are a clean example. EBRI labels them as the net cost of a 30-day supply for one treated person. At one continuously treated user per 100 employees, those inputs become $6.26–$7.77 PEPM after calendar normalization. Calling $617–$766 “per employee per month” would overstate that one-user-per-100 workforce allocation by about 99 times.

What this data shows — and what it does not

This page reconciles published units and supplies a transparent budgeting model. It is not a national survey and it does not estimate what a specific employer will spend. We did not average incompatible benchmarks into a single headline number.

How do you calculate GLP-1 cost per employee per month?

For an actual historical figure, divide plan-paid GLP-1 cost by enrolled employee-months. For a forecast, multiply continuous treated users by the calendar-normalized plan-paid amount per treated user-month, spread it across enrolled employees, and then add plan-paid fees and program costs. Treated dependents belong in the numerator; the denominator remains enrolled employees.

Historical PEPM

GLP-1 PEPM
= total plan-paid GLP-1 cost during the period
  ÷ enrolled employee-months during the period

Forecast PEPM

forecast PEPM
= (continuously treated users per 100 employees ÷ 100)
  × calendar-normalized plan-paid amount per treated user-month
  + plan-paid program and administration PEPM

Calendar normalization for a per-fill price

calendar-normalized plan-paid amount per treated user-month
= (30.4375 ÷ days supplied per fill)
  × (plan-paid amount per fill + plan-paid per-fill fees)

plan-paid amount per fill
= allowed amount − employee or dependent cost share

annual budget
= PEPM × enrolled employees × 12

Four input errors cause most bad forecasts: using annual initiators where the equation needs monthly continuous users; using clinical eligibility where it needs actual utilization; using list price where the plan pays a different amount; and treating a 28-day or 30-day fill as a calendar month.

Why the calendar-normalization step matters

An average calendar month is 365.25 ÷ 12, or 30.4375 days. A four-week supply covers 28 days. EBRI’s named price inputs cover 30 days. ICER’s final net-price estimates are annual. Those periods are not interchangeable. At the $449 four-week input, one user per 100 employees costs $4.88 PEPM, not $4.49. Across 1,000 employees, the calendar-normalized annual amount is $58,570, versus $53,880 under a simple one-fill-per-month shortcut — a difference of about $4,690 per year, not $470.

What did the June 2026 JAMA employer-plan study find?

Shahzad and colleagues analyzed about 6.3 million patients across 5,787 employer plans offered by 1,756 employers, all administered by UnitedHealthcare. Using December 2024 utilization, the authors estimated that weight-loss GLP-1 coverage added $9.23 PMPM at a $6,830 annual price assumption and $16.21 PMPM at a $12,000 assumption.

In December 2024, covering plans supplied 1,260.0 GLP-1 patient-days per 1,000 enrollees, versus 766.8 in non-covering plans. The difference was 493.2 days per 1,000 enrollees per month, or 64.3%.

The dollar figures are modeled, not observed adjudicated spend. The study also says it could not assess differences in cost sharing. Two authors were affiliated with UnitedHealth Group, and the underlying data came from UnitedHealthcare-administered plans.

Rebuilding the JAMA number

incremental PMPM
= incremental patient-days per 1,000 enrollees ÷ 1,000
  × price per treatment day

price per treatment day = annual price ÷ 365

Source: WPG Research Team calculation using the JAMA study’s reported December 2024 difference of 493.2 GLP-1 patient-days per 1,000 enrollees. ICER prices are estimated annual net prices from its December 16, 2025 Final Evidence Report. Lilly’s $449 is a manufacturer-to-network-pharmacy price, not an all-in employer net cost. Utilization is held constant. Verified August 1, 2026.

The price bases are different. ICER’s figures are estimated annual net prices. Lilly’s $449 is a four-week pharmacy price with final employer fees determined separately. The table is a sensitivity analysis, not a claim that the prices are contractually equivalent.

What does each additional GLP-1 user per 100 employees cost?

One continuously treated user per 100 employees adds $4.88 PEPM at a $449 four-week input, $5.69 PEPM at ICER’s $6,829 annual semaglutide input, and $6.26–$7.77 PEPM at EBRI’s $617–$766 30-day inputs. The relationship is linear until price, days supplied, cost sharing, fees, or persistence changes.

Source: WPG Research Team, Employer GLP-1 PEPM Model v1.0. The $200 column is EBRI’s hypothetical future monthly-price scenario, not a current market price. Lilly: $449 per four weekly injections. ICER: $6,829 and $7,973 estimated annual net prices. EBRI: $617 Wegovy, $725 Zepbound, $766 Saxenda per 30-day supply. Drug component only. Verified August 1, 2026.

The one-fill-per-month shortcut

If you ignore days supplied and assume one paid fill per calendar month, one user per 100 employees produces $4.49 at the $449 input and $6.17–$7.66 at EBRI’s inputs. That is useful as an arithmetic check, but it understates continuous calendar coverage because 28 and 30 days are shorter than the average 30.4375-day calendar month.

An illustrative cost-sharing sensitivity

Source: WPG Research Team, Employer GLP-1 PEPM Model v1.0. EBRI modeled a $90 copay per 30-day supply as a proxy for a typical specialty-drug benefit design. This table applies a flat $90 per-fill employee share solely as an arithmetic sensitivity. It does not model deductibles, accumulators, out-of-pocket maximums, coupons, or adjudicated benefit rules. A real plan should use actual plan-paid claims amounts. Verified August 1, 2026.

What is the difference between PEPM, PMPM, PMPY, and treated-person price?

PEPM divides cost by enrolled employees. PMPM divides cost by all covered members, including dependents. PMPY is the annual member figure. A treated-person price divides only by people receiving treatment. They answer different questions.

Source: WPG Research Team, Employer GLP-1 PEPM Model v1.0. Verified August 1, 2026.

The JAMA study’s 1,260.0 days supplied per 1,000 enrollees is not 1,260 people. Dividing by 30.4375 produces about 41.4 full calendar-month treatment equivalents per 1,000 members. The 493.2-day coverage difference produces about 16.2 month-equivalents per 1,000 members, or 1.62 per 100.

How do you convert GLP-1 PMPM to PEPM?

Multiply PMPM by the plan’s covered member-months divided by enrolled employee-months. There is no valid universal multiplier. A plan covering 1.5 members per employee does not convert the same way as one covering 2.5.

PEPM = PMPM × (covered member-months ÷ enrolled employee-months)

Source: WPG Research Team calculation from Shahzad et al. The ratios are sensitivities, not national defaults. Use actual member-months and employee-months. Verified August 1, 2026.

Do not select one row and publish it as a national PEPM. AssuredPartners does not disclose enough common-denominator detail in its public case study to convert its covering-plan anti-obesity series into a defensible whole-book PEPM, so this page does not make that conversion.

What drove GLP-1 spending growth in Delaware?

Delaware’s regulator concluded that higher utilization, rather than a large increase in plan-paid cost per prescription, drove the growth in GLP-1 spending among commercial fully insured members from 2020 through 2023. The full presentation reports plan-paid cost net of prescription rebates moving from $399 to $409 per script, while GLP-1 PMPM rose from $4.81 to $12.79.

Source: Delaware Department of Insurance, Office of Value-Based Health Care Delivery, September 2, 2025 presentation. Data collected from CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and Optum Rx under SB 116 and 18 Del. C. § 334. Covers commercial fully insured Delaware residents. Verified August 1, 2026.

The direction is clear: the plan-paid amount per prescription changed little while treatment volume and PMPM rose sharply. However, the percentage claims in the Delaware materials are not clean enough to repeat without qualification. The presentation says PMPM increased 137%, but displayed values of $4.81 and $12.79 imply 165.9%. It says use increased 127%, while the chart labels are rounded to 6 and 13 prescriptions per 1,000 member-months. It also states a 2023 pre-rebate cost of $952, while the stacked-bar total is labeled $969.

The two-page public brief introduces another discrepancy: its chart labels the 2020 and 2021 plan-paid amounts as $339, while the full presentation lists $399 for both years. This page uses the full presentation values because they align with the report’s “around $400” description more closely. The unresolved discrepancies remain a limitation.

How much does persistence change employer GLP-1 cost?

Persistence changes the number of paid treatment months, so it changes annual cost even when the price per fill stays fixed. Prime Therapeutics found one-year persistence among commercially insured adults without diabetes initiating Wegovy or Zepbound rose from 33.2% in the 2021 cohort to 62.6% in the Q1 2024 cohort.

Source: Prime Therapeutics, GLP-1 Therapy to Treat Obesity Among Members Without Diabetes: Three-Year Persistence and Year-Over-Year Persistence Rate Change, June 25, 2025. Persistence meant no gap of 60 days or more; product switching was allowed. Verified August 1, 2026.

That is an 88.6% relative increase between the 2021 and Q1 2024 cohorts. Prime says the resolution of supply shortages likely contributed. The cost arithmetic is simpler than the causal story: at the same price, nine paid months cost three times as much as three paid months. Initiation rate and persistence must be modeled separately.

What do published employer and health-plan GLP-1 cost benchmarks show?

Public benchmarks range widely because they measure different populations, indications, cost bases, denominators, and periods. Averaging the rows would create a number that describes no actual plan.

Sources: the producer publications listed in the Sources section. WPG preserved each producer’s reported period, population, unit, and cost basis. Verified August 1, 2026.

The AssuredPartners crossover is not a whole-book crossover

AssuredPartners’ chart shows anti-obesity PEPM at $43.65 and injectable-antidiabetic PEPM at $41.81 in Q3 2024, so the displayed lines cross. But its footnote says the anti-obesity PEPM covers only employees in plans allowing anti-obesity coverage, while the antidiabetic series covers the full book. The chart therefore supports this statement: among covering plans, displayed anti-obesity PEPM exceeded the whole-book antidiabetic PEPM in Q3 2024. It does not establish that anti-obesity cost exceeded antidiabetic cost across the entire book.

What share of employer pharmacy or claims spending do GLP-1s represent?

Published shares run from just over 6% to 17%, but the denominators and cost bases differ. Some rows cover weight-management drugs only; some cover the GLP-1 class. Some use pharmacy spend; one uses total claims.

Sources: Delaware OVBHCD; Evernorth 2025 Pharmacy in Focus; Nomi Health / Artemis Trends in Spend; IFEBP 2025 Pulse Survey; CBIZ 2025 State of Healthcare Report. Verified August 1, 2026.

The IFEBP row is especially easy to misquote: its denominator is total annual claims, not pharmacy spend. Those are not interchangeable shares.

For scale, Mercer’s 2025 survey put total employer-sponsored health benefit cost at $17,496 per employee in 2025, or $1,458 per employee per month by simple division. Mercer projected the 2026 amount would exceed $18,500 per employee, or about $1,542 PEPM. A $46.76 PEPM anti-obesity line item is roughly 3% of that broader per-employee total, but the populations and cost bases still need to be matched before making a plan-specific comparison.

How do rebates, cost sharing, fees, and persistence change GLP-1 PEPM?

Each changes either the employer-paid numerator or the number of paid treatment days. A manufacturer pharmacy price, gross cost, allowed amount, plan-paid amount, and net price are different inputs.

Rebates

Delaware’s presentation reports rebates per prescription rising from $340 in 2020 to $473 in 2023 while the plan-paid amount net of prescription rebates moved from $399 to $409. That is one market, not a universal rebate schedule, but it shows why a gross price and a plan-paid net amount can move differently.

PHTI also documented a contract-design problem through an on-the-record employer interview. One large retail warehouse employer said: “We were told that changing BMI or clinical requirements would cause us to lose our rebates, making restriction strategies financially disadvantageous.” That is one employer’s reported contract experience, not proof that every PBM contract works that way.

Cost sharing

A nominal copay is not the same thing as an adjudicated plan-paid reduction. Deductibles, accumulators, out-of-pocket maximums, coupons, and benefit design determine the actual split. Table 5 is an arithmetic sensitivity, not a claim about what a real plan will pay.

Fees

Dispensing, service, administration, and program fees can sit outside the published drug input. Lilly says the final Employer Connect cost depends on the selected pharmacy, program administrator, and negotiated fee arrangement. A $449 pharmacy price is therefore not a guaranteed all-in employer invoice.

Persistence

Persistence changes paid treatment months. The Prime cohort trend in Table 9 shows why a model built on shortage-era persistence can miss current utilization, but a plan should use its own continuation and refill data whenever possible.

Does a lower GLP-1 list price reduce employer cost?

Not automatically. Novo Nordisk announced that the U.S. list price of Wegovy, Ozempic, and Rybelsus will fall to $675 per month on January 1, 2027. Mercer expects the lower list price to be offset by lower rebates, producing little change in net cost after rebates and potentially shifting a slightly larger share of total cost to employers.

Novo’s announcement is a future list-price change. Mercer’s conclusion is an actuarial forecast, not an observed 2027 result. Actual employer impact will depend on PBM guarantees, rebate treatment, formulary terms, member cost sharing, and utilization.

A lower unit price can also increase total spend if more people initiate therapy or remain on it longer. That is a planning inference, not an observed effect of Novo’s 2027 change. The Delaware series shows the broader arithmetic: spending can rise rapidly while plan-paid unit cost changes little when utilization rises.

Do GLP-1s save employers enough to offset their cost?

The public evidence reviewed here does not support a universal near-term offset. Some analyses show slower medical-cost growth for sustained users, but the pharmacy cost remains large and the total-cost findings depend on population, adherence, price, follow-up period, and study design.

PHTI’s December 2025 review concluded that available employer evidence was unanimous that GLP-1 use increased total health-care spending over the three-to-four-year period in which most workers remain on the same employer-sponsored coverage. PHTI found that drug costs exceeded reductions in other medical costs during that window.

Prime Therapeutics’ 2026 real-world intent-to-treat study matched 10,094 members without diabetes who used GLP-1s for obesity to 29,570 control member-index dates. Total cost of care remained $4,490 higher in year three for the treatment group, with no trend toward medical-spending reductions. In the three-year adherent subanalysis, the annual pharmacy-spending difference-in-differences versus matched controls remained above $12,000 in every post-period year.

AssuredPartners reported a similar shape in its five-year diabetic cohort comparison: medical claims grew at a 13.01% compound annual rate for weight-loss-drug users versus 18.25% for non-users, which the report translated to about $560 in annual medical-cost reduction and about $6,540 in added annual prescription cost per user.

Aon’s 2026 workforce analysis found slower growth in medical and non-GLP-1 pharmacy spending among users. For the diabetes cohort, the improvement was six percentage points versus controls from 12 through 30 months and nine points among users with at least 80% adherence. For the weight-loss cohort, the improvement was three percentage points from 12 through 18 months and seven points among users with at least 80% adherence. Those are percentage-point improvements in non-GLP-1 cost growth, not proof of a total-cost offset after adding the GLP-1 drug.

The honest conclusion is narrower than either side’s slogan: medical-cost signals may improve with sustained use, while current drug cost can still leave total employer spending higher over the observed period.

How we produced the Employer GLP-1 PEPM Model

We preserved every producer’s original unit and denominator, converted disclosed price periods to a common calendar-month basis, and applied one published equation across every scenario. No survey was conducted. No producer benchmarks were averaged.

Source hierarchy

We used peer-reviewed studies, regulator-collected data, original manufacturer program terms, and original reports from the organizations that produced each benchmark. Secondary reporting was not used as the basis for a consequential number.

Calculation rules

• Preserve every source’s published unit, population, cost basis, and denominator.
• Separate observed claims figures from modeled estimates and WPG-derived arithmetic.
• Do not convert PMPM to PEPM without plan-specific covered member-months and enrolled employee-months.
• Do not average unrelated benchmark rows.
• Keep full precision internally; display PEPM to cents and annual dollars to the nearest dollar using round-half-up.
• Treat missing rebate, cost-share, fee, and sample fields as missing rather than inferring them.

Every WPG-derived figure on this page can be regenerated from the disclosed formula and inputs.

Limitations and unresolved source questions

The model is reproducible, but the public evidence is not a national census and several producer documents leave material fields missing or internally inconsistent.

1. No public national PEPM benchmark was found. Every observed figure is a book of business, market segment, or state population. The WPG model is a scenario engine, not a prevalence forecast.
2. The JAMA dollar figures are modeled. The study uses observed utilization and applies annual price assumptions. It could not assess cost-sharing differences, and two authors were affiliated with the data producer’s corporate parent.
3. Delaware’s materials contain unresolved discrepancies. The full presentation reports $399 plan-paid per prescription in 2020 and 2021; the two-page brief’s graphic prints $339. The presentation says PMPM increased 137%, while displayed values of $4.81 and $12.79 imply 165.9%. This page reports the displayed data and flags the conflicts.
4. EBRI’s Issue Brief No. 644 contains two different cost-scaling descriptions. The study-design text says two, three, and four cost units for the three duration groups; Figure 3 says one, two, and three. The published 5.3%–13.8% premium range should not be independently rebuilt until those parameters are reconciled with EBRI.
5. The price periods differ. EBRI reports 30-day prices. Lilly reports four weekly injections. ICER reports annual net prices. Converting ICER’s $6,829 annual semaglutide estimate to $569.08 per calendar month is valid; treating $569.08 as a 30-day fill and normalizing it again is not.
6. PHTI’s price exhibit places different periods side by side. Its list-price column is labeled for a 28-day supply, while annual net prices are divided by 12. A reader must not multiply the monthly net figure by 13 fills.
7. AssuredPartners’ two chart series use different denominators. Anti-obesity PEPM is covering plans only; injectable-antidiabetic PEPM is whole book. The public report does not provide the employee counts required for a common-denominator restatement.
8. Some producers do not disclose rebate, member-share, fee, or sample detail. Missing fields remain missing in this page’s benchmark crosswalk.
9. Continuous-treatment normalization is an analytical convention. Real refill timing, missed doses, titration, wastage, discontinuation, switching, and mid-year starts vary.
10. The $449 Lilly input is not a guaranteed employer invoice. Lilly states that final cost depends on the selected pharmacy, program administrator, and negotiated dispensing and service fees.
11. The cost-sharing table is illustrative. A flat $90 subtraction does not reproduce a real benefit design.
12. This resource is not actuarial, legal, benefits, financial, or medical advice. A plan’s claims data, enrollment files, plan document, and contracts govern its actual cost.

Frequently asked questions about GLP-1 cost per employee per month

How to cite this page

Suggested reference

WPG Research Team. “GLP-1 Cost Per Employee Per Month: 2026 Data.” Weight Loss Provider Guide Research. Dataset version 1.0. Last verified August 1, 2026. https://weightlossproviderguide.com/research/glp-1-cost-per-employee-per-month

Dataset

WPG Research Team. Employer GLP-1 PEPM Model, version 1.0. Weight Loss Provider Guide Research, 2026.

For a modeled figure, retain the price input, price period, utilization level, dataset version, and verification date. For a producer benchmark, retain the producer, period, unit, denominator, population, and cost basis.

About this resource

Weight Loss Provider Guide Research is an independent research and reference resource covering access, costs, coverage, and policy for medical weight-management care.

• Produced by: WPG Research Team
• How it was produced: primary-source extraction, denominator reconciliation, days-supply normalization, and disclosed arithmetic. No survey was conducted.
• Why it exists: to give employers, writers, and researchers a reproducible answer to a cost question routinely distorted by denominator and time-period errors.
• Last verified: August 1, 2026

This page carries no advertising, sponsored placement, affiliate links, lead routing, or provider promotion. It is educational and is not actuarial, legal, benefits, financial, or medical advice.

Change log

August 1, 2026 — Dataset version 1.0, initial publication. Published the peer-reviewed JAMA crosswalk, calendar-normalized PEPM model, PMPM-to-PEPM sensitivity, denominator-preserving benchmark table, Delaware regulator decomposition, and persistence-by-cohort series. Before publication, the calculation basis was corrected to treat ICER’s $6,829 and $7,973 figures as annual prices rather than 30-day fills and to preserve the distinct 28-day, 30-day, calendar-month, and annual periods.

Sources

1. Shahzad M, Advani P, Akintola O, Chernew M. "GLP-1 Prescriptions for Weight Loss by Differences in Insurance Plan Coverage." JAMA Health Forum. Published June 26, 2026.
2. AssuredPartners. "GLP-1 Cost Effectiveness for Employer Sponsored Health Plans." February 20, 2025.
3. Sharma K, Spiegel J, Fronstin P. "GLP-1 Coverage and Its Impact on Employment-Based Health Plan Premiums: A Simulation-Based Analysis." EBRI Issue Brief No. 644. October 9, 2025.
4. Lin GA, Lee W, Fahim SM, et al. "Semaglutide and Tirzepatide for Obesity: Effectiveness and Value." ICER Final Report. December 16, 2025.
5. Eli Lilly and Company. "Lilly Employer Connect platform launches with over fifteen independent program administrators..." March 5, 2026.
6. Delaware Department of Insurance, Office of Value-Based Health Care Delivery. "Trends in GLP-1 Spend and Use: Delaware Commercial, Fully-Insured Market, 2020 to 2023." September 2, 2025 presentation.
7. Delaware Department of Insurance. "Utilization Not Cost of GLP-1 Medications Drives Increased Spending." August 2025 brief.
8. Peterson Health Technology Institute. "Employer Approaches to GLP-1 Coverage." December 2025.
9. Prime Therapeutics. "GLP-1 Therapy to Treat Obesity Among Members Without Diabetes: Three-Year Persistence and Year-Over-Year Persistence Rate Change." June 25, 2025.
10. Prime Therapeutics. "GLP-1 Obesity Treatment Three-Year Cost Offset Study." 2026.
11. Aon. "Workforce-Focused Analysis on GLP-1s: Phase Two Findings." 2026.
12. Novo Nordisk. "Novo Nordisk announces significant reduction in US list price for Wegovy, Ozempic, and Rybelsus." February 24, 2026.
13. Mercer. "Novo Nordisk’s GLP-1 list price cut. What to watch next." February 26, 2026.
14. Lockton. "Why holistic GLP-1 strategies are needed now." March 3, 2026.
15. WTW. "GLP-1 drugs in 2025: Cost, access and the future of obesity treatment." April 11, 2025.
16. Aon. "2024 GLP-1 Outlook and Coverage Considerations."
17. Prime Therapeutics. "Obesity with Preexisting Cardiovascular Disease without Diabetes." AMCP 2024.
18. Merative. "GLP-1 outcomes: What we've learned and where payers need to focus next." September 29, 2025.
19. Evernorth Research Institute. "2025 Pharmacy in Focus." March 2025.
20. Nomi Health / Artemis. "Weight Loss Drugs Weigh Heavy on Employer Health Plans." June 6, 2024.
21. International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. "GLP-1 Drugs Responsible for Over Ten Percent of Annual Claims." May 22, 2025.
22. CBIZ. "CBIZ Report Highlights Rising Costs..." May 2025.
23. Mercer. "US employers and workers will face affordability crunch as health insurance cost is expected to exceed $18,500 per employee in 2026." November 18, 2025.
24. KFF. "How Many Adults with Private Health Insurance Could Use GLP-1 Drugs." September 6, 2024.