GLP-1 Employer Coverage Statistics (2026):
What Eight U.S. Surveys Actually Measure

GLP-1 employer coverage statistics do not produce one national rate. As of July 31, 2026, the latest publicly documented estimates from eight U.S. employer-survey producers range from 15% to 67% for weight-loss, weight-management, obesity, or combined diabetes-and-weight-loss coverage — a 52-percentage-point spread.

SHRM reports 15%. KFF reports 19%. IFEBP reports 36%. Brown & Brown reports 48%. Mercer and Aon report 49%. WTW reports 66%. Business Group on Health reports 67%. Those figures describe different employer populations, different questions and different units of analysis. Treating them as interchangeable turns a measurement problem into a false argument.

We built the crosswalk below because the spread is not one statistic with seven wrong answers. It is eight documented estimates with eight denominators. Once the denominator stays attached, the range stops looking like noise and starts looking like a map.

GLP-1 employer coverage statistics at a glance

The cleanest current answer is a range, not an average: 15% to 67%. KFF provides a weighted firm-level estimate of 19% for firms with at least 200 workers that offer health benefits and asks about the firm's largest plan. Mercer reports 49% among employers with at least 500 employees. The highest estimates come from a WTW client sample and a Business Group on Health member sample, not from surveys of all U.S. employers.

Four employer GLP-1 coverage figures commonly quoted

Source: WPG Research Team, U.S. Employer GLP-1 Coverage Survey Crosswalk v1.0. Producer figures from SHRM, KFF, Mercer and Business Group on Health. Last verified July 31, 2026.

These are percentages of responding firms, organizations, clients or members. They are not percentages of American workers with coverage. That distinction does more damage than almost any other error in this subject, and we return to it below.

The full U.S. Employer GLP-1 Coverage Survey Crosswalk

The eight current producer estimates do not share a common population, indication or survey design. This table keeps the question and population behind every rate intact. It also separates weighted nationwide estimates for a stated employer universe from unweighted, member, client and methods-incomplete benchmarks.

Eight current producer estimates, ordered from lowest to highest

Source: WPG Research Team, U.S. Employer GLP-1 Coverage Survey Crosswalk v1.0. Producer materials: SHRM result and methodology; KFF; IFEBP; Brown & Brown; Aon; Mercer; WTW; Business Group on Health. WTW's indexed producer page returned an access block during verification; figures were cross-checked against contemporaneous reporting explicitly attributing the survey to WTW. Last verified July 31, 2026.

Range: 15% to 67%. Spread: 52 percentage points.

We did not average these. We are not going to. A pooled percentage would imply that the surveys share a population, a question and a weighting scheme, and they do not. The average of eight incompatible measurements is not a better measurement. It is a worse one wearing a lab coat.

Dataset files: crosswalk CSV. Column definitions and calculation notes appear in the Dataset fields section below.

What does this data show, and what does it not show?

The crosswalk shows how eight surveyed employer populations report plan coverage under different designs. It does not show the share of all U.S. employers, all U.S. workers or any individual employee who has coverage under one harmonized national measure.

What it shows:

• The latest reviewed producer estimates span 52 percentage points.
• Employer size matters inside the strongest within-survey comparison: KFF reports 16% among firms with 200–999 workers and 43% among firms with 5,000 or more.
• The indication wording matters. “Weight management,” “weight loss,” “obesity” and “both diabetes and weight loss” are not identical survey constructs.
• The unit matters. KFF asks about the largest plan; several other producers describe the organization, client or member.
• Restrictions are commonly routed through subgroups, which makes the denominator easy to lose.

What it does not show:

• A worker-weighted national access rate.
• Coverage under every plan offered by a multi-plan employer.
• Whether a particular drug is on a particular employee's current formulary.
• Whether employer size causes coverage.
• A national 2027 cancellation rate.
• A national dollar total for employer GLP-1 spending.

KFF reports that firms with 200–999 workers were more likely than larger firms to say they did not know whether their largest plan covered GLP-1 agonists for weight loss. The public text does not publish one all-large-firm percentage for that uncertainty, so this page does not invent one. The separate 24% figure in KFF's report is the share of noncovering firms that said they were somewhat likely to begin covering the drugs, not the share that did not know their current coverage.

How did we build the U.S. Employer GLP-1 Coverage Survey Crosswalk?

We reviewed publicly documented materials published by employer-benefit survey producers through July 31, 2026, preserved each producer's denominator and did not statistically pool the results. The original asset is the crosswalk, source-reconciliation record and derived arithmetic — not a new employer survey.

A producer estimate qualified for the headline crosswalk when it:

1. Reported a current U.S. employer, plan-sponsor, client or member coverage percentage.
2. Identified the indication as weight loss, weight management, obesity, or both diabetes and weight loss.
3. Was publicly documented by the survey producer. When a producer page was indexed but blocked during verification, the result also had to be corroborated by contemporaneous reporting that explicitly attributed the figures to that producer.
4. Disclosed enough population context to keep the rate from floating free of its denominator.

For each eligible estimate, we recorded producer and survey name; survey year and field period where public; publication date where public; sample size; sampling source and weighting statement; employer-size threshold; funding-type restriction where applicable; unit being counted; exact indication wording; current coverage rate; comparable prior-year figures; restriction and continuation data; primary-source URL; source conflicts and public-methodology gaps; and last verification date.

Three rules governed the work.

We preserved the producer's wording. “Weight loss,” “weight management,” “obesity” and “both diabetes and weight loss” are related but distinct survey constructs. We did not convert one into another.

We did not pool or average. The surveys do not share a common sampling frame, employer-size universe, indication or unit of analysis.

We preferred the detailed report over a summary page. Where materials from one producer disagreed, we used the document with the clearer question, sample and routing, then logged the conflict instead of quietly picking the convenient number.

Secondary reporting was used for discovery and cross-checking, not counted as an independent estimate. When an article repeats KFF's 19%, that is still KFF's 19%.

Derived percentages below are arithmetic on the producers' published figures. The calculation is shown beside each result. Where public question routing is incomplete, we do not manufacture a common denominator.

Last source verification: July 31, 2026 · Dataset version: 1.0

What percentage of employers cover GLP-1s for weight loss?

The reviewed estimates range from 15% to 67%, depending on which employers and which coverage question are counted. KFF's weighted answer for firms with at least 200 workers that offer health benefits is 19% for the firm's largest plan. Mercer's weighted large-employer answer is 49% for employers with at least 500 employees. WTW and Business Group on Health report 66% and 67% in client and member samples.

If you need one number and cannot use a qualifier, you have a problem no source can solve for you. If you can use a qualifier — and in almost every sentence, you can — the crosswalk tells you which figure fits.

The safe conclusion is not that one producer found the “real” rate and seven missed it. The safe conclusion is that the answer changes with the denominator.

Why do employer GLP-1 coverage estimates range from 15% to 67%?

Employer size, sampling source, weighting, indication wording and unit of analysis all move the result. KFF gives clean evidence that size matters inside one survey. The cross-survey spread cannot be assigned to size alone because the instruments also differ in who was sampled, how results were weighted and what “coverage” meant.

Employer size changes the answer inside KFF's survey

KFF's size breakdown is the cleanest evidence because one producer asked one question under one survey design.

Source: KFF, 2025 Employer Health Benefits Survey, Figure 13.16. Last verified July 31, 2026.

The 5,000-plus group reported coverage at 2.69 times the rate of the 200–999 group: 43 ÷ 16 = 2.6875. The absolute difference is 27 percentage points.

That is strong evidence that employer-size composition can move a survey result. It is not proof that size explains the entire 52-point cross-survey spread. Member composition, client composition, weighting and question wording are moving at the same time.

Brown & Brown's separate June 2025 level-funded and self-funded pulse points in the same broad direction, but not in a perfectly straight line:

Source: Brown & Brown, June 2025 employer pulse, n=237 level-funded and self-funded employers. Last verified July 31, 2026.

Its two larger categories report much more coverage than its two smaller categories, but the 10,001-plus category falls below the 2,001–10,000 category. The honest reading is a broad size pattern, not a law that coverage rises at every threshold.

Weighted surveys, unweighted surveys, member surveys and client surveys are different animals

KFF randomly selects firms and uses weights that support nationwide estimates for its stated universe. Mercer says its 2025 results are weighted to represent U.S. health-plan sponsors with at least 50 employees, while its 49% GLP-1 result is reported for employers with at least 500 employees.

SHRM collected 5,472 responses across organizations with two to more than 50,000 workers and states that the data are unweighted. Business Group on Health surveyed 105 members. WTW surveyed 294 clients. Brown & Brown surveyed 1,241 employers with at least 200 U.S.-based employees and reports a ±3% margin of error, but its public report does not call the 48% figure a nationally weighted estimate. Aon's public article gives the result without a public sample or weighting statement.

None of those designs is useless. Each answers a real question about a real respondent population. They do not answer the same national question.

Diabetes coverage is not weight-management coverage

IFEBP's public 2026 corporate-response chart separates the categories.

Source: IFEBP, GLP-1 Drugs: 2026 Pulse Survey, corporate-response chart, n=327. Percentages are rounded. Last verified July 31, 2026.

The chart reports 0% in the weight-loss-only category. That is a rounded survey result, not proof that no individual respondent selected the category before rounding.

The same chart implies that 96% of corporate respondents reported diabetes coverage either alone or together with weight loss in 2026: 60% + 36%. That figure belongs to IFEBP's corporate respondents. It is not a national rate for all employers.

“The organization” and “the largest plan” are different questions

KFF asks whether the firm's largest plan includes coverage. A company offering three plans with three formularies is represented by one plan in that measure. Other producers describe whether the employer, client or member covers the drugs.

A company can answer those formulations differently without contradicting itself.

Employer percentages are not employee percentages

The rates in the crosswalk describe surveyed firms, organizations, clients or members. They do not tell us what share of workers has access.

KFF's GLP-1 result is a firm-level estimate within the stated 200-plus universe. KFF's broader report uses different weights for different measures: many cost and enrollment statistics are covered-worker weighted, while firm-level statistics use firm weights. That is exactly why the unit has to stay attached.

No reviewed producer publishes a current national worker-level coverage rate for weight-loss GLP-1s. We did not estimate one. Doing so would require unsupported assumptions about firms below 200 workers, multi-plan employers, enrollment within each plan and whether reported firm coverage applies uniformly to every covered worker.

The honest answer is that this statistic does not currently exist in the reviewed public record. We would rather say so than manufacture it.

Which GLP-1 employer coverage statistic fits which claim?

The right figure depends on the denominator in the sentence. Match the population to the claim, preserve the coverage wording and keep the survey year attached.

Source: WPG Research Team, U.S. Employer GLP-1 Coverage Survey Crosswalk v1.0. Last verified July 31, 2026.

Constructions that survive a fact-check

“KFF found that 19% of firms with at least 200 workers that offer health benefits reported that their largest health plan covered GLP-1 agonists when used primarily for weight loss in 2025.”

“Mercer reported that 49% of employers with at least 500 employees covered GLP-1 weight-loss medications in 2025, up from 44% in 2024.”

“Across the latest publicly documented estimates from eight U.S. employer-survey producers reviewed by WPG Research Team, reported weight-loss, weight-management, obesity or combined diabetes-and-weight-loss coverage ranged from 15% to 67%.”

Constructions that do not

• “Only 19% of employees have coverage.” (A firm-level estimate presented as a worker rate.)
• “67% of U.S. employers cover GLP-1s.” (A member survey presented as national.)
• “The average employer coverage rate is 42%.” (An average of incompatible populations.)
• “36% of employers cover weight-loss drugs.” (Drops IFEBP's “both diabetes and weight loss” wording.)
• “GLP-1s consume 11.4% of employer drug spending.” (IFEBP reports total annual claims, not prescription-drug spending.)

What restrictions do employers impose on GLP-1 coverage?

Prior authorization, clinical criteria, lifestyle-program participation and prescriber limits appear repeatedly, but the published percentages do not share one denominator. Restriction data is where a number can lose 20 or 30 points simply because the previous question disappeared.

Brown & Brown's current survey shows the nesting clearly

Brown & Brown's 2026 edition reports that 48% of 1,241 responding employers cover GLP-1s for weight loss. Only current coverers answered the GLP-1 follow-up questions: n=597. Of those coverers, 63% reported restrictions: n=376. The three named restrictions below were measured inside that restricted subgroup.

Source: Brown & Brown, 2026 Employer Health and Benefits Strategy Survey, Figure 3. Restated figures are 63% × the published subgroup rate and are approximate because the inputs are rounded. Last verified July 31, 2026.

Brown & Brown says these controls are used “in addition to prior authorizations,” but the public report does not publish a prior-authorization percentage. We do not infer one.

The earlier Brown & Brown pulse gives a historical worked example

Brown & Brown's separate June 2025 pulse surveyed 237 level-funded and self-funded employers. It found 37% coverage; 59% of coverers had restrictions; and the listed restriction percentages were conditional on that 59%.

Source: Brown & Brown, State of GLP-1 Medication Coverage for Weight Loss: Employer Survey Results, June 2025. Restated figures equal 59% × the published subgroup rate and are approximate because the inputs are rounded. Last verified July 31, 2026.

“80% require prior authorization” is accurate only inside the restricted subgroup. On the base of all coverers in that survey, the algebraic restatement is about 47.2%.

IFEBP's 2025 release provides a second verified nesting example

IFEBP's May 2025 producer release gives the routing that its 2026 public page does not. Among employers covering GLP-1 drugs, 78% used utilization management. Among that subgroup, 96% required prior authorization. Separately, 68% of coverers used eligibility requirements; the published eligibility percentages were conditional on that 68%.

Source: IFEBP, “GLP-1 Drugs Responsible for Over Ten Percent of Annual Claims,” May 22, 2025. Restated figures multiply the producer's published routed percentages and are approximate because the inputs are rounded. Last verified July 31, 2026.

This is historical 2025 routing evidence, not a substitute for the 2026 survey's current raw eligibility figures.

Other producers use other bases

Sources: KFF, Aon and IFEBP. Last verified July 31, 2026.

The public IFEBP page does not disclose enough question routing to multiply those three eligibility figures into a new all-coverer rate.

The rule is simple: before quoting a benefits-survey restriction percentage, find out what the previous question was.

Where does the public source record conflict or invite a denominator error?

The most dangerous errors are not invented numbers. They are real numbers attached to the wrong year, population or stage of a routed question. Four source-record problems deserve a permanent note.

IFEBP's claims-share series is labeled under two incompatible year conventions

IFEBP's current survey page and public chart label 10.5% as the 2024 average and 11.4% as the 2025 average. IFEBP's May 2025 press release instead called 10.5% the average for 2025, while its July 2026 blog says the figure “climbed to 11.4% in 2026.” The producer is switching between claims-data years and survey-wave years across its own materials.

Last verified July 31, 2026.

Because those labels conflict, this page does not publish a clean calendar-year growth calculation across all four points. The least ambiguous current construction is: “IFEBP's 2026 survey reports that weight-loss GLP-1s represented an average 11.4% of total annual claims for corporate respondents in 2025.”

Brown & Brown's 31% and 37% describe different things in the June 2025 pulse

The detailed June 2025 PDF reports 37% coverage. Its web summary says “those that cover (31%),” but 31% in the detailed report is the share of current coverers who were considering stopping or were unsure about continuing: 7% + 24%.

The detailed report's 37% is the coverage rate. The 31% is a retention-risk measure. Brown & Brown's newer 2026 edition reports 48% in a separate 1,241-employer survey. That is a new dataset, not a correction of the 37% pulse.

Business Group on Health's release has no visible publication date

The producer page says the survey was “released today” but shows no visible calendar date. It does state that 105 employer members completed the survey in February and March 2026.

For date-sensitive attribution, use the field window and an access or verification date rather than inventing a publication date.

KFF's eligibility figures require the insurance denominator to remain attached

KFF's 2024 eligibility analysis contains several different figures.

Source: Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, “How many adults with private health insurance could use GLP-1 drugs”, published September 5, 2024. Last verified July 31, 2026.

The 57.4 million figure is not the employer-sponsored-insurance figure. For an employer-plan sentence, the matching total is 49.3 million.

Is employer GLP-1 coverage rising or falling?

The within-producer trend is mixed: flat overall in KFF, sharply higher among KFF's largest firms, higher in Mercer's large-employer series, and flat in IFEBP's combined diabetes-and-weight-loss category from 2025 to 2026. Forward-looking surveys show both continued coverage and planned pullbacks, not one national direction.

Trends belong inside a producer's own series. Connecting KFF's 19% to Business Group on Health's 67% would draw a line between different populations and call it growth.

Comparable within-producer trends

Sources: KFF, Mercer and IFEBP. Last verified July 31, 2026.

What the 2027 planning data says

Sources: Brown & Brown, Business Group on Health, WTW and Mercer. Last verified July 31, 2026.

Do not convert those intentions into a predicted 2027 coverage rate. They come from different samples, use different response scales and do not measure completed 2027 plan design.

How much do weight-loss GLP-1s affect employer claims and premiums?

The public evidence measures at least three different things: the share of claims among reporting respondents, employer perceptions of prescription-drug impact and modeled premium effects. Those figures belong in one comparison table only when their units remain visible.

Sources: IFEBP, KFF, Business Group on Health and EBRI. EBRI's study was funded through its Center for Research on Health Benefits Innovation with support from Aon, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, JPMorgan Chase and PhRMA. Last verified July 31, 2026.

“Total annual claims” is not “drug spending.” IFEBP's 11.4% is a share of total annual claims as the producer labels the measure. It should not be rewritten as a share of pharmacy claims or prescription-drug spending.

A model is not an observed premium increase. EBRI's 5.3%–13.8% range comes from a simulation under varying assumptions. It is not a measured national premium change caused by current coverage.

There is no defensible national employer-dollar total in the reviewed sources. Producing one would require a harmonized coverage rate, covered-worker denominator, utilization, persistence and net cost under assumptions that are not publicly established at national scale. We did not calculate it.

How many privately insured adults meet clinical criteria for GLP-1 drugs?

KFF estimates that 49.3 million adults under 65 with employer-sponsored insurance — 42% of that population — meet clinical criteria for a GLP-1 drug for diabetes, obesity, or overweight with a qualifying weight-related condition. This is an eligibility estimate, not a coverage rate and not a forecast of use.

Source: Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, using 2023 National Health Interview Survey data and 2012–2022 Merative MarketScan claims. Last verified July 31, 2026.

The 42% ESI clinical-eligibility estimate and the roughly 3% 2022 ESI claim share are 39 percentage points apart. That is a reproducible comparison inside KFF's analysis, but it is not an employer-coverage-gap estimate: one measure models clinical eligibility using 2023 survey data, while the other measures observed claims in 2022.

Eligibility is not coverage. Coverage is not utilization. A person may meet clinical criteria and still face a formulary exclusion, a higher BMI threshold, another clinical requirement, or a decision not to use the medication.

What do consumer use and employer noncoverage responses show?

Consumer use is rising faster than the employer-coverage measures in the reviewed survey series, but the two should not be turned into one trend line. Gallup measures U.S. adults; IFEBP measures corporate respondents and employer responses. The populations, questions and units are different.

Sources: Gallup, “In U.S., GLP-1 Usage Reaches New High,” July 7, 2026 and IFEBP's July 2026 producer summary. Last verified July 31, 2026.

Those figures do not reveal who paid for a medication, whether an employer plan covered it, or whether a direct-to-consumer purchase was reimbursed. They show growing use and the approaches some noncovering employers report recommending; they do not prove where unmet demand went.

Why does this matter for 2027 plan decisions?

The newest surveys show a market in which coverage remains common among large-employer respondents while controls and discontinuation discussions are becoming more visible. The strongest current signals are stated intentions, not completed national outcomes.

Business Group on Health reports that 87% of its employer respondents expect oral GLP-1 availability to increase overall demand, while 9% expect a price decrease and 83% use the same standard cost-share arrangement used for other medications. Mercer reports that 27% of large employers tightened controls in 2026 or plan to in 2027. Brown & Brown reports that 63% of current coverers in its 200-plus-employer sample already have restrictions.

That combination explains why “Does the employer cover GLP-1s?” is no longer enough. The next questions are:

• For which indication?
• Under which plan?
• Under what clinical threshold?
• Through which prescriber?
• With what continuation rule?
• For which plan year?

A yes-or-no coverage rate cannot answer those by itself.

Limitations

We would rather over-disclose than have a reader discover these later.

• These are employer or benefits-staff responses. This crosswalk relies on producer-reported survey responses, not an independent audit of every underlying plan document.
• The estimates are not one national series. KFF and Mercer publish weighting statements for their stated employer universes. SHRM's data is unweighted. Business Group on Health and WTW report member or client samples. Brown & Brown reports a large 200-plus-employer sample and a margin of error but does not present the GLP-1 result as a nationwide weighted estimate. Aon and IFEBP disclose limited public methodology for the figures used here.
• Field periods differ. The current crosswalk combines results fielded from January 2025 through June 2026 because producers publish on different cycles. The survey year belongs beside every number.
• One producer page was indexed but blocked during verification. WTW's official Rx Pulse page returned an access block when reopened. The current WTW row therefore uses the indexed producer record and contemporaneous reporting that explicitly attributes the 294-employer, 2.8-million-member, 66% result to WTW.
• Some measures describe the organization; KFF describes the largest plan. Multi-plan employers can have different formularies across plans.
• Coverage indications differ. Weight loss, weight management, obesity, and both diabetes and weight loss are not interchangeable labels.
• The public restriction questions use different routing. Some rates describe all coverers; others describe only coverers with restrictions or another routed subgroup. Restated Brown & Brown and IFEBP 2025 figures are arithmetic on rounded published percentages, not new survey estimates.
• There is no worker-weighted national coverage rate in the reviewed public record. The crosswalk cannot tell an individual employee whether a current plan covers a specific medication.
• We conducted no employer survey. The original work here is the multi-source crosswalk, denominator audit, source-conflict log, calculation layer and versioned dataset.
• Correlation is not causation. KFF reports higher coverage at larger firms. The data does not establish that employer size itself causes coverage.
• This is not medical, legal, insurance or plan-administration advice. Individual coverage depends on current plan documents, indication, formulary and clinical criteria. Verify a specific benefit through the plan's current materials or administrator and take clinical questions to a licensed clinician.

Frequently asked questions

What percentage of employers cover GLP-1s for weight loss?

There is no single figure for all U.S. employers. The eight producer estimates reviewed here range from 15% to 67%, depending on the employer population and survey design. KFF's weighted estimate for firms with at least 200 workers that offer health benefits is 19% for the firm's largest plan; Mercer reports 49% among employers with at least 500 employees.

Why do employer GLP-1 coverage statistics differ so much?

The surveys use different employer-size groups, sampling frames, weighting methods, coverage indications and units of analysis. KFF shows a strong size gradient within one instrument, but employer size alone does not explain every cross-survey difference.

Do large employers cover GLP-1s more often than smaller employers?

KFF reports 16% coverage among firms with 200–999 workers, 30% among firms with 1,000–4,999 workers and 43% among firms with at least 5,000 workers. That is the cleanest within-survey evidence that reported coverage rises with employer size.

Does 19% of employers mean 81% of workers lack coverage?

No. KFF's 19% is a firm-level estimate about the largest plan at firms with at least 200 workers that offer health benefits. It is not a worker-weighted access rate, and no reviewed producer publishes a current national worker-level coverage estimate for weight-loss GLP-1s.

Are employers dropping GLP-1 coverage?

Some are dropping coverage and more are tightening controls, but there is no national cancellation rate. Mercer reports that 6% of large employers dropped coverage in 2026 and another 5% planned to drop or were actively considering a drop for 2027; Business Group on Health and WTW report continuation intentions for their own member and client samples.

What is the most common restriction on employer GLP-1 coverage?

Prior authorization appears repeatedly across employer surveys, but the public sources do not provide one harmonized national prevalence rate. Published restriction figures often use routed subgroups, so the denominator must remain attached.

Do most employers cover GLP-1s for diabetes?

Within IFEBP's 2026 corporate-response chart, 60% report diabetes-only coverage and 36% report coverage for both diabetes and weight loss. That means 96% report diabetes coverage in one of those two categories, subject to rounding and limited to that respondent group.

Which statistic is closest to a national employer estimate?

KFF provides a weighted firm-level estimate for firms with at least 200 workers that offer health benefits and asks about the firm's largest plan. Mercer provides a weighted estimate for employers with at least 500 employees. Neither covers every employer, every plan or every worker.

What share of employer health plan claims do weight-loss GLP-1s represent?

IFEBP reports that weight-loss GLP-1s represented an average 11.4% of total annual claims in 2025 among 52 corporate respondents that reported this measure, and 14.7% among multiemployer and public-plan respondents. These are respondent-group averages, not national spending shares.

How to cite this page

Suggested citation

WPG Research Team. “GLP-1 Employer Coverage Statistics (2026): What Eight U.S. Surveys Actually Measure.” GLP-1 Consumer Research, Weight Loss Provider Guide. Last verified July 31, 2026. https://weightlossproviderguide.com/research/glp-1-employer-coverage-statistics

For a figure drawn from one survey, the producing organization's source is listed beside the relevant table and in the source list below.

Dataset citation

WPG Research Team. U.S. Employer GLP-1 Coverage Survey Crosswalk, 2023–2026. Version 1.0. July 31, 2026. https://weightlossproviderguide.com/research/data/us-employer-glp-1-coverage-survey-crosswalk-v1.0.csv

Dataset fields and calculation notes

Derived calculations

• Coverage spread: 67 − 15 = 52 percentage points.
• KFF size ratio: 43 ÷ 16 = 2.6875, reported as 2.69 times.
• KFF largest-firm relative increase: (43 − 28) ÷ 28 = 53.6%.
• Brown & Brown 2026 normalized restrictions: 63% × 49% = 30.9%; 63% × 38% = 23.9%; 63% × 35% = 22.1%.
• IFEBP 2025 normalized controls: 78% × 96% = 74.9%; 68% × 88% = 59.8%; the remaining values use the same routed-base multiplication.
• KFF eligibility-versus-claim difference: 42% − 3% = 39 percentage points. This is not labeled a coverage gap because the measures use different years and concepts.

Primary sources

Employer coverage surveys

• SHRM, “Facing High GLP-1 Costs, Employers Shake Up Pharmacy Strategies”
• SHRM, 2026 Employee Benefits Survey methodology
• KFF, 2025 Employer Health Benefits Survey
• IFEBP, GLP-1 Drugs: 2026 Pulse Survey (U.S.)
• IFEBP, 2026 producer summary and trend discussion
• IFEBP, May 2025 claims and routing release
• IFEBP, June 2024 coverage and claims release
• Brown & Brown, 2026 Employer Health and Benefits Strategy Survey
• Brown & Brown, June 2025 GLP-1 employer pulse report
• Brown & Brown, June 2025 web summary
• Aon, 2025 U.S. Health Survey findings
• Mercer, 2025 National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans
• Mercer, Survey on Health and Benefit Strategies for 2027
• WTW, June 2026 Rx Pulse Survey
• Business Group on Health, 2026 GLP-1 Survey

Population and cost modeling

• Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, clinical eligibility among privately insured adults
• EBRI, GLP-1 Coverage and Its Impact on Employment-Based Health Plan Premiums: A Simulation-Based Analysis
• Gallup, “In U.S., GLP-1 Usage Reaches New High”

About this research

This page was produced by the WPG Research Team for GLP-1 Consumer Research, an independent research and reference resource published by Weight Loss Provider Guide.

The team reviewed producer materials and the one documented access exception described in the limitations, standardized the published fields, documented denominator and source conflicts, and calculated the derived findings shown here. We did not conduct an employer survey.

This research page contains no affiliate links, paid placements, commercial provider comparisons, lead routing or commercial recommendations. Commercial relationships elsewhere on Weight Loss Provider Guide did not determine which surveys were included, excluded or emphasized.

Corrections and version history

Factual and transcription corrections are recorded here with the date, the original text and the corrected text. Source-backed corrections can be sent to hello@weightlossproviderguide.com.

v1.0 — July 31, 2026. Initial publication. Eight-producer crosswalk assembled and checked against producer materials, with the WTW access exception disclosed. Brown & Brown's current 2026-edition survey added as the current row; its June 2025 pulse retained as historical restriction evidence. Conditional-denominator arithmetic documented. Public source conflicts and methodology gaps logged.

Reverification schedule. Full source audit quarterly, plus an event-driven update when a producer publishes a new annual survey, correction, methods appendix or completed plan-year result. The visible “Last verified” date and dateModified change only after a substantive source re-check.