It's Time for Over-the-Counter Ozempic
There's an easy way to lower the cost of next-generation weight-loss drugs.

The new insulin-stimulating weight-loss drugs semaglutide and tirzepatide appear impressive. Studies suggest they help people shed pounds, reduce the likelihood of heart attacks and strokes, and may even treat kidney problems, HIV-related liver disease, alcoholism, and other maladies. It is easy to see why semaglutide was the top-selling drug in the United States in 2023 ($38.6 billion in sales), with tirzepatide coming in eighth ($13.2 billion).
Affordability is a problem, though. Novo Nordisk markets semaglutide as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Rybelsus. Eli Lilly markets tirzepatide as Mounjaro and Zepbound. Each company charges about $1,000 per monthly dose. Because over 100 million Americans could benefit from these drugs, three prominent economists estimate that "at current prices, making [them] available to all obese Americans could eventually cost over $1 trillion per year." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) worries that Ozempic "has the potential to bankrupt Medicare, the American people, and our entire health care system."
To make these medicines widely available without breaking the bank, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should do what it already does with some insulin products: Let consumers buy them "over the counter" (OTC). That is, without a prescription.
Drugs tend to be dramatically less expensive when they are available OTC. For example, the per-milligram price of prescription ibuprofen is 28 times higher than that of OTC ibuprofen. The per‐milligram price of prescription naproxen sodium is 3.3–4.2 times higher than for OTC naproxen sodium. The Consumer Healthcare Products Association estimates OTC drugs save consumers $51.6 billion a year relative to higher-priced prescription medicines, plus another $94.8 billion on unnecessary doctor's office visits and diagnostic tests.
Prescription medications tend to be pricier than their OTC equivalents partly because insurance pays for the former while consumers pay for the latter. Consumers are price-sensitive, and their preference for cheaper drugs over more expensive ones stimulates price competition. But when insurers pick up the tab, consumers stop caring and drug makers can overcharge without fear of losing customers.
This is why excessive prices prevail even when patented drugs have close substitutes. In theory, competition should force Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and other companies with similar products to price these drugs reasonably. But when insurers foot the bills, consumers are less willing to switch to cheaper medications and competition fails. Knowing this, drug makers can demand even higher prices than patents alone would allow.
The argument for prescription requirements is that patients will harm themselves if they take medications without physician supervision. Here, the assertion rings hollow. Millions of patients use OTC insulin safely every day.
We—a physician, a law professor, and an economist—believe that patients should be free to purchase the new generation of weight-loss drugs without needing to get permission from government-appointed gatekeepers. But if federal policy makers insist on professional guidance, they should at least allow pharmacists to prescribe these medicines. Many countries, including the United States, use "behind the counter" (BTC) or "OTC-pharmacist" requirements to lessen the burden of government-imposed prescription requirements.
Claims that current prices are necessary to spur innovation should also fall on deaf ears. According to one estimate, a month's supply of semaglutide costs as little as $0.90 to produce. The U.S. government is already encouraging innovation by granting Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly multiple patents that allow them to charge prices that exceed the cost of production. Moreover, they can charge such prices to an astounding number of potential customers: Worldwide, there are some 2.5 billion overweight adults, plus another 390 million overweight children. The FDA doesn't need to increase prices further by encouraging unnecessary insurance coverage for these drugs.
President Joe Biden says he wants to reduce drug prices. The promise of semaglutide and tirzepatide presents an opportunity to do that. The FDA need only leave consumers free to buy these medicines OTC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Consider preparing your own meals including the morning caffeinated beverage using wholesome ingredients and do the work to ensure physical activity is part of your daily routine. Or keep drinking chunkin doughnuts sugary dairy elixirs while pounding down pizza butt baked cheesy bread. It is your body’s health, maybe it would be wise to treat it well.
Indeed. High fructose corn sweetener is one of the great culprits. It's in everything from soda pop to ice cream. The grocery stores are packed with junk foods because they are cheap to make and provide huge profits.
I see the results of such poor diets in my little village where half of the young girls are morbidly obese. Was never that way when I was growing up. There were a couple who were obese but it was not as common as it is now.
Patient: "Doc, I'm very slowly shooting myself in the face. What can I do about it?"
Doc: "Develop enough self-control to stop shooting yourself in the face."
Patient: "Developing my own agency and self control is tough. And we've got this system set up to insulate me from the costs of all the other ways I might shoot myself in the face... isn't there a surgery or a pill or something I could take to prevent me from intentionally shooting myself in the face that doesn't upset the whole apple cart and force me to face all these other issues that I've just been socializing and subisidizing?"
Doc: "No. I can make you thin. Thin is easy. But stopping you from shooting yourself in the face? There is no pill that you can take that will develop your agency and self-control for you."
Im pretty pro OTC most things, including Ozempic, but people need to know the truth about it.
Its not a miracle cure, it comes at a cost. That cost being shutting down your GI tract and fucking with your normal endocrinology to offset terrible eating habits.
The miracle cure is diet and exercise. Miracle cure to happyness, fitness, and obesity. Ozempic makes you lose weight by not actually learning good habits and tuning your body, but by destroying the normal digestive process and shutting down things that are supposed to work.
There are a variety of apt analogies, but the GI tract is like a factory that normally has resources go in one side, and on the other side "product" is produced (here product would be storage of fat/sugar in various forms, making you fat if you feed the input side too much). Ozempic is taking a sledgehammer to all the conveyor belts, throwing sand in all the bearings, randomly swapping presses/molds for each other, and miraculously, less "product" comes out the other side (less weight gain), and the input side gets very jammed up (cant eat as much), with the end cost being a shitty partially destroyed factory.
These patients look terrible. Their ratio of muscle mass plummets and they look frail, weak. They also have tons of vomiting from being backed up, nasty horrid smelling diarrhea.
I say make it OTC because I like freedom, but people need to know what they are signing up for
Puberty blockers: 100% safe and effective with no downsides for your 8 yr old.
They worked for sqrlsy!
Check out MAGA McMagaface over here.
I was actually kind of shocked to find out that insulin had OTC status now. I'm not opposed in principle, of course, as a libertarian. I'm just shocked. It really does NOT fit the profile of a normal OTC drug, in terms of the potential for acute and lethal overdose.
Sure, ozempic should be available OTC. The case for it is actually better than for insulin.
Sunny von Bulow agrees.
The FDA doesn't need to increase prices further by encouraging unnecessary insurance coverage for these drugs.
Yes, but then they won't get a cushy consultant position after they leave the FDA. Also do any government "scientist", like Fauci with the jab(?), receive money from the patents - oh wait we little people aren't allowed to know that.
Just think, if we make a specific exception for Ozempic, then we can keep the rest of the fat in Washington without having to ask too many questions.
Can't have a Gov-Gun monopoly on pharmaceutical extortion if they're all over-the-counter in a free-market!
What were you thinking! /s
Too many side effects for me. Just eat whole foods and exercise.
The problem is the incentives that force people into the "All you can Eat Buffet" style of healthcare with insurance. What happens when you go to a Vegas-style AYCE? You pay $80 a person and then gorge yourself. You don't go and have a tiny amount, because you are already on the hook for $80- of course you are going to get your money's worth (and more!).
The Health Savings Account system was a miraculous way to start getting people price-conscious again. Paired with a High Deductible Insurance Plan, the accounts encouraged people to build a nest-egg for their health, and to spend that money conscious of the costs. Unfortunately, ACA ruined high deductible insurance plans, and thereby ruined much of the incentives that controlled costs.
As the authors note, Price Sensitivity is how we lower prices. When people must consider price, they will make tradeoffs in return for lower prices, and manufacturers will spend energy lessening these tradeoffs while offering the lower prices. This is why our TVs of today are higher quality, but lesser cost than TVs of 40 years ago. Unfortunately, the entire socialist experiment is designed to make people NOT be price sensitive, because they (unrealistically) believe tradeoffs can be avoided if smart enough people tackle the problem.
Well Said +100000000000.
"they (unrealistically) believe " Gov-Gun 'armed-theft' of those 'icky' people will "tackle the problem". Ignoring the fact that 'Guns' don't make sh*t pretty much pegs the very fault of the socialist ideology as explains why every regime has gone genocidal in it's pursuits.
The small amount of individual responsibility and price sensitivity (and thus capitalist competitive pressures) that started to show up with HSAs seems to have been eliminated. When people don't want to have to worry about that and just complain that someone isn't giving them "what they deserve" for "free", then those are the same types that will want to use these drugs as their perceived solution rather than putting in any of their own effort along the way. And they want these drugs for free, too. OTC pricing won't be enough for these government-control zealots, pining about how the "poor can't afford it". Well, there are things I can't afford either, so I have to find alternatives that do work within my budget of money and time.
A critical issue with Ozempic, etc. are the long term effects, which are basically unknown. It has shown that weight loss is disproportionately lean mass and when a person stops taking it, weight returns, although with less muscle mass. Prescriptions do not include lifestyle changes, as that would eliminate the need for the expensive drugs. There are natural ways to increase GLP-1 without spending $1,000 per month - https://www.healthline.com/health/foods-that-increase-glp-1
Eating less processed foods, more home cooked meals from scratch, more fruits and vegetables (they are not that expensive, especially with the cost of processed snacks).
And most important - MOVE. Even a two minute walk each hour will help. Studies have shown participants that walked 7000-8000 steps a day had a 50-60% higher chance of living after 10 years in the study. It evens out glucose in the system and improves metabolic rate. Likely reduce the 40% of the population that is obese.
Fen-Fen and other "wonder" drugs have not been the blessing that was initially advertised. Ozempic etc., likely will not either.
" It has shown that weight loss is disproportionately lean mass and when a person stops taking it, weight returns, although with less muscle mass."
I'm not sure I'd call that a "side effect"; That's characteristic of weight loss by dieting without exercise. Any time you diet weight off without extra exercise you're going to see that happen.
Any time you diet weight off without
extra exercisededicated effort to prevent it you’re going to see that happen.FIFY. You can out-diet your exercise regime into a loss of muscle (pretty easily). More exercise doesn’t necessarily fix the problem and you may have to cut back dieting to prevent muscle loss.
The hilarious part is that women for 50 yrs. have been bitching about how hard it is to be thin because the patriarchy demands it while men, OTOH, have “had it easy” by (more) critically struggling with the issue of “getting thin, but not scrawny” for the same time period.
Well, yeah, diet can always beat exercise. Isn't much exercise can do if you're starving to death.
The purpose of Ozempic is to suppress appetite. It's apparently so effective you can go on a starvation diet and not really mind. But it's still a starvation diet.
I'm just saying the effects of starvation aren't a drug side effect, you'd get the same result if you were starving yourself to death without the drug. You'd just be very hungry while doing it.
This drug could make a sensible diet and exercise program easier to stick to, most of the problems are due to people who want to use it to lose weight at an unhealthy rate while not hitting the gym.
Pity they don't have a drug to make you want to spend an hour on a treadmill...
Yup. The parts of the equation are known, and there will never be a miracle cure.
The laws of thermodynamics are still intact here, and remain unbeaten. Its still calories in, calories out. Ozempic just “allows” you to take in less calories…by fucking up your gastric/intestinal motility, food absorption, and as a result of those two things, also causing less input to the system.
The hard truth remains the same: you have to put down the fork and move your body. Always will be the case.
You could argue the anorexics solved the problem long ago, by the same logic. In fact, the amount of vomiting and decreased calorie intake has a huge overlap amongst the two communities.
This drug has two modes of operation:
1: It lowers motility.
2: It increases production of a gastric hormone signaling that you've eaten enough.
The second mode of operation actually does help you put down the fork. Possibly too soon for continued good health, though.
I think the stuff can be safely used, but only in connection with a carefully designed diet and exercise program, not as a substitute for them.
From what I've been reading about this drug, I would stay away from it.
Nasty side effects.
This shit isn't meant for casual use. The side effects are pretty well-documented since it became the latest elite social status trend.
As every one has noted, there are side effects that need evaluation against other options. I used Ozempic as a diabetes treatment, and it did lower A1C over several months. With that reduced to where it should be, I stopped using it. There was weight loss over several months, and it is returning, but more slowly than it was lost. But the blood sugar numbers are remaining at the lower levels, and overall it was worth the side effects.
But I would never take it for weight loss alone, and never without regular blood work and progress reviews with my doctor.
That’s an awful lot of tap dancing in order to… uh… keep medicare from collapsing?
To make these medicines widely available without breaking the bank, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should do what it already does with some insulin products:
Break what bank? How? With 3B overweight adults and children are we worried that Novo Nordisk has forgotten how to turn a profit and will price themselves out of existence despite a *massive* market? Or are you angling for something like keeping the rest of the system propped up while pretending (once again) that something has been done about obesity.
Drugs tend to be dramatically less expensive when they are available OTC.
…
Prescription medications tend to be pricier than their OTC equivalents partly because insurance pays for the former while consumers pay for the latter.
Oh, right because consumers like to keep money while private insurers prefer to lose it.
This is why excessive prices prevail even when patented drugs have close substitutes.
Wait, I thought prices were high because regulations prevented OTC drugs and insurance companies like to set fire to money. This almost makes it sound like patenting and IP inflate costs without regard for the drug’s availability and, maybe, we really are worried Novo Nordisk has forgotten how to make money and/or that they wouldn’t make money from OTC Ozempic in a bootlegers and baptists-style arrangement.
The argument for prescription requirements is that patients will harm themselves if they take medications without physician supervision.
You mean unlike some heroin users might overdose and kill themselves “causing a national epidemic”, some people like anorexics, who totally wouldn’t be influenced by social contagion, absolutely would not kill themselves with drugs like Ozempic? What a great idea! With the best of intentions! What could possibly go wrong!
Why not bundle the Ozempic with puberty blockers while we’re at it?
Here, the assertion rings hollow. Millions of patients use OTC insulin safely every day.
Weird I and nobody I know don’t calls (e.g.) OTC Aleve users “patients”. Patients of whom?
Again, this article feels like a weird, half-assed, written-by-committee piece to push OTC Ozempic on the assumption that it will utterly fix the obesity crisis without being forced address literally any of the other implications or issues with health, healthcare, or government run healthcare.
It doesn’t make sense that patented drugs are expensive if there are cheaper substitutes unless the value is in the patent. In which case, it’s patent enforcement rather than the FDA creating the false value.
If we completely decriminalize Olympic, then it'll be safe because we'll know what's in it.
I absolutely don't like the big drug companies, but isn't part of the incentive to spend millions or billions on R&D to create a new drug that the drug company will have the patent for something like 7 years? That way they can recoup the cost of R&D that went into developing the new drug and then make a profit. The authors of this article portrayed it as no big deal if generics can emerge now, while the patent is active, as the cost of PRODUCTION of the pill is under $1. Yeah, actually making the drug now is cheap, but the R&D that went into creating the formula was not.
This sounds like all the other "Medicare for all" or socialized healthcare advocates who demonize (in this instance unfairly--though there are lots of other things they should be condemned for) the drug companies for charging so much for their prescription drugs when it only costs $x to make it in the drug factory, ignoring concepts like return on investment and profit.
You should definitely do some research, you sound like a drug manufacturer bot. The vast majority of the drugs are developed in universities and publicly funded labs, and then for some reason we hand them over to drug companies to manufacture at a profit. There is very little base R&D being done by the drug manufacturers themselves, at least independently and at their sole expense.
you sound like a drug manufacturer bot
Are you Sarc, with that ad hominem fallacy? I've made it clear I have no love for the big drug companies. My point was about property rights. If a company develops a new drug and gets a patent, they have a right to price it however they choose. That's to get return on investment. Without that, there is no incentive to put the money and work into developing new drugs. The return for the new drugs that are effective pay for the R&D on the other drugs that were not successful. You don't have a right to receive any drug and at a low price-point.
Was Ozempic developed cheaply by "universities and publicly funded labs"? Even if that's true (and you'll need to provide evidence to back up your claim), I don't want any publicly funded labs, nor publicly funded universities. If you are a libertarian (I don't know if you claim to be, as I'm not familiar with your handle, ErinS), publicly-funded anything that isn't a power/responsibility of the federal government outlined in the Constitution should be a problem for you. My biggest gripe with the drug companies is that they use the power of the government to give them a leg up on what they would have to deal with in a true free market. Same with big tech. We need to shrink the size and scope of the federal government (and state governments, IMO) so big business partnered with politicians can't screw us over as easily.
.
Their income not only has to recoup the R&D of the product(s) they sell, but also the (failed) R&D for products that never make it to production/sales.
I agree. I don't think you saw my response to ErinS, but I mentioned that as well.
The authors of this article portrayed it as no big deal if generics can emerge now, while the patent is active, as the cost of PRODUCTION of the pill is under $1. Yeah, actually making the drug now is cheap, but the R&D that went into creating the formula was not.
This is Reason where mass surveillance is a good thing-- if done right, and mandated electric vehicles are well-intentioned ways of saving the environment, as long as they come without a Trump tariff.
The mastodon in the room is that there is nothing new about assembling peptides in the lab.
Pharmaceutical drugs are neither more difficult or expensive to make than recreational drugs, and the same actors who have flooded the world with MDA ,fentanyl and other synthetic opiates are bound to be attracted by the immense margins of profit “ethical pharmaceutical” firms enjoy retailing megabuck a gram drugs like ozempic.
It’s a safe bet that AI chemists are already being trained from the massive literature on organic chemistry and molecular synthesis
Make everything OTC. If im ok with people killing themselves with narcotics, driving, eating tide pods, who am I to tell them they cant ruin themselves with fad weight loss drugs.
Make everything OTC.
The authors specifically don't want to make everything OTC for fear it would... uh... [checks notes] "break the bank".
uh… [checks notes] “break the bank”.
LOL... Bingo. Well Said +10000000000000
Ozempic almost killed Ben Dreyfus. It's not as safe as the dancing fatsos on TV imply
>>next-generation weight-loss drugs
you know it turns your stomach to stone, yo?
An emergency diabetes treatment being sold off label as a weight loss drug, that has never undergone any testing of long term use, and where the most notable side effect is a slow, excruciating, death should definitely be sold over the counter. Hell, we should make it a mandatory component of school lunches.
We don't have to worry about climate change or astroids. Idiocy is going to be our extinction event.