Glucose Monitors Are Finally Available Over the Counter
Over-the-counter continuous glucose monitors empower consumers with valuable health insights without the need for a doctor’s prescription.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared the first continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) for over-the-counter sale—a major win for health freedom and common sense.
"Giving more individuals valuable information about their health, regardless of their access to a doctor or health insurance, is an important step forward in advancing health equity for U.S. patients," said Jeff Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in a press release announcing the change.
CGMs are wearable devices that continuously monitor blood sugar levels in real time. They've been invaluable for diabetics—but their potential goes much further. For instance, those with chronically elevated blood sugar levels, even if they don't meet the threshold for diabetes, could use CGMs to manage their health early and avoid a future diagnosis.
Even in metabolically healthy individuals, avoiding blood sugar spikes and crashes can support weight loss, steady energy levels, and overall well-being since elevated blood sugar can cause oxidative stress and inflammation.
Before CGMs, the best way to test blood sugar levels at home was by pricking a finger and using a glucose test strip. I used this method when I was diagnosed with gestational diabetes a few years back. It was unpleasant, inconvenient—requiring lancets, test strips, and a reader—and very limited in insights, since it could only measure blood sugar levels at one discrete point in time. If my blood sugar quickly spiked beyond normal levels but also quickly fell, pricking my finger an hour or two after eating, as recommended, would fail to capture this.
CGMs offer a more convenient way of gleaning information about blood sugar responses, which can vary greatly between people or even within the same person depending on different variables. (While carbohydrates are understood to spike glucose levels higher than proteins and fats do, individual bodies can still react very differently to foods.)
Until this year, Americans needed a prescription for CGMs, which were officially approved only for use by diabetics. That meant anyone who simply wanted to learn about their own blood sugar responses either was out of luck or had to find a doctor or program willing to write an off-label prescription.
As interest in CGMs for nondiabetics grew, companies such as Levels, Signos, and ZOE emerged to cater to the market.
I signed up with Signos after learning that the "gestational diabetes" I had been diagnosed with was actually an ongoing issue with insulin production. Using the CGM that Signos provided (Dexcom's G7 sensor) was less annoying and more informative than the finger prick method had been. But getting a CGM through Signos was not as simple—or affordable—as buying over-the-counter, as it still required an online consultation and a Signos doctor's approval. And with the Signos program—which came with an app, community groups, weight loss tracking tools, and challenges and tests for users—I was paying for a lot of bells and whistles I really didn't need.
For those wanting extra support, Signos and the like may be great. And it's worth appreciating companies innovating in a heavily regulated space. But I grew increasingly annoyed that I couldn't simply go into a drugstore and buy a CGM.
Thankfully, in March 2024, the FDA cleared Dexcom to market and granted it the legal power to sell the Stelo Glucose Biosensor System directly to consumers. It's indicated for diabetics not using insulin and "those without diabetes who want to better understand how diet and exercise may impact blood sugar levels," per the FDA. Abbott has also received FDA clearance to launch two over-the-counter CGMs, one (the Libre Rio) for Type 2 diabetics who don't use insulin and one (the Lingo) for people without diabetes.
After having discontinued my CGM use for more than a year, I decided to give the Stelo a try. Getting it was simple—I just went on the Stelo website, added it to my cart, and checked out like I would with any other product. Plus, it was easier on my pocketbook.
The Signos CGM costs $449 a month, or $199 a month with a subscription. Stelo's, on the other hand, is just $99 a month or $89 a month with a subscription. And you can get a single Lingo biosensor (lasting two weeks) for $49 or a 12-week supply for $249. We can expect CGM prices to go even lower as more over-the-counter versions are approved.
How useful CGMs are for nondiabetics is an issue still hotly debated in science and wellness communities. But a CGM is simply a device that monitors a health metric. By restricting CGMs to prescriptions and diabetics, the FDA wasn't protecting consumers—it was keeping them in the dark.
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
End the FDA. The current medical supplier system is at least as corrupt and dangerous as anything the nanny state whiners can imagine about a free market approach.
It is because of the FDA that we were spared the thalidomide catastrophe.
But there are LOTS of drugs and devices thst should not require a prescription. This is one example. I don't have diabetes but managed to wear a CGM as part of a research study. No harm. It took decades to get an OTC oral contraceptive, something that is very safe. There are numerous other examples.
Tell that to the people who were deformed by that drug.
You left out "shit stain".
By restricting CGMs to prescriptions and diabetics, the FDA wasn't protecting consumers—it was keeping them in the dark.
I am a Type 2 diabetic and have used CGMs on an off for a few years now. I am glad that there will be lower-cost options, though I do want to know if my insurance will at least partially support my use of them OTC.
But there is nothing wrong with the FDC finding out whether a product that pierces the skin and will remain attached for two weeks at a time is safe before approving it for OTC use. Making sure that it is accurate and that risks of infection are low is important. It seems normal and reasonable to me for a new product, just like new medications, to be available by prescription only for a time. A doctor to ensure that the patient would really need it and that the benefits outweigh any risks, some time to collect the data on how side effects or problems occur in the real world outside of clinical trials, and to observe quality control in manufacturing. Then, if all looks good, then it can be made available for anyone that wants to use it without professional supervision.
Drugs and devices that have been available OTC for decades can still cause problems, so being sure that consumers aren't being put at unreasonable risk is fair. It is par for the course for libertarians to think that this level of "nanny-state" is both unnecessary and restrictive of liberty, but then they should also try and understand the opposing perspective. Some people think that part of government's role is to be pro-active in protecting people from snake-oil salesmen and unscrupulous or negligent corporations that will put profit ahead of people's safety and well-being.
Making sure that it is accurate and that risks of infection are low is important but why is that a proper function of government? Why isn't that something that private review companies (such as Consumer Reports or any of their many competitors) can do faster, better, cheaper and more frequently? Yes, there is a risk of conflicts of interest but there is ample evidence that government agencies suffer the same (or worse) conflicts of interest risk.
You are confusing 'it's a good thing' with 'it's a thing that government should do'.
Or confusing "it's a thing I want" with "it's a thing government should give me".
Private agencias such as CR can only test a tiny fraction of the products on the market. And they take a long time. The FDA usually declares most devices to be non significant risk in just 30 days.
They take 30 days to tell what anyone else can see at a glance. Consumer's Research would bother only with items for which there's a genuine question.
Private agencies only test the fraction they do in part because government has unnecessarily preempted the market for testing (and largely done a crappy job at it). If government got out of the business and CR couldn't handle the demand, its economics 101 that someone else would step in to expand the supply.
Private agencies only test the fraction they do in part because government has unnecessarily preempted the market for testing (and largely done a crappy job at it). If government got out of the business and CR couldn't handle the demand, its economics 101 that someone else would step in to expand the supply.
You are making an assumption that free market economics will serve this purpose, and serve it better than the government, at that. What is the record of the free market ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs and treatments available directly to consumers at the corner store prior to the existence of government regulation? This isn't a rhetorical question, either. I don't actually know the answer to that, but I would think that would be the starting place for finding out if your assertion has a chance to be correct in today's world.
As for current data against the free market being sufficient, I present the ~$50 billion market for nutritional supplements. Regulations on those is far less than for OTC medications. As far as I know, they aren't regulated significantly more than most food items. As long as they don't explicitly claim to treat a specific condition, they don't have to undergo any scientific testing. Where are the private organizations doing that and getting word to the public about the results?
You are also a pathetic, slimy pile of lefty shit who supports murder as a preventative for, well, as a slimy pile of lefty shit, you really don't know:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Eat shit and die, asshole.
^This is the hate-filled, fascist shit who supports killing children by the thousands as if that will be a lesson to terrorists that only view those children as fuel for their Jihad.
Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment December 13, 2024 at 5:51pm
"When you start a war against a stronger opponent, expect to suffer more casualties.
Don't like it? Don't start the war."
Indeed, he is an embarrassment.
Private organizations do a great job reviewing, evaluating and publishing about nutritional supplements. You can easily find all sorts of credible articles about their (mostly lack of) efficacy. Lots of people don't read them but that's a reader/consumer problem, not a government problem.
There's a sucker born every minute, I suppose is what you are saying. And you are also saying that if there are companies making tens of billions of dollars selling things to those suckers, no one needs to do any more about it than they already are. And no, they aren't doing a "great" job, if these supplement companies can continue to make billions selling placebos.
"Private agencias such as CR can only test a tiny fraction of the products on the market. And they take a long time. The FDA usually declares most devices to be non significant risk in just 30 days."
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Fuck off and die asshole.
You mean the manufacturer won’t get immunity from lawsuits like “vaccine” producers? Why not?
I was waiting for a trial lawyer grifter to comment.
I wasn't waiting for a steaming pile of lefty shit to comment, but here you are.
FOAD, asshole.
You are also a slimy pile of lefty shit who supports murder as a preventative for, well, as a slimy pile of lefty shit, you really don't know:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Eat shit and die, asshole.
^This is the hate-filled, fascist shit who supports killing children by the thousands as if that will be a lesson to terrorists that only view those children as fuel for their Jihad.
Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment December 13, 2024 at 5:51pm
"When you start a war against a stronger opponent, expect to suffer more casualties.
Don't like it? Don't start the war."
Indeed, he is an embarrassment.
Interesting that the OTC version (is it really different?) is only for those NOT using insulin.
Hypochondriacs don’t need accurate information.
The OTC versions might not be designed for the level of precision and accuracy that someone on insulin would have to have. I'm not sure if that is enough to explain this, but it could be part of it. I know that my previous insurance would only pay for those monitors if I did need insulin.
You are also a steaming pile of lefty shit who supports murder as a preventative for, well, as a slimy pile of lefty shit, you really don't know:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Eat shit and die, asshole.
^This is the hate-filled, fascist shit who supports killing children by the thousands as if that will be a lesson to terrorists that only view those children as fuel for their Jihad.
Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment December 13, 2024 at 5:51pm
"When you start a war against a stronger opponent, expect to suffer more casualties.
Don't like it? Don't start the war."
Indeed, he is an embarrassment.
I never get tired of ENB's narcissism stories.
Anyway.
But a CGM is simply a device that monitors a health metric.
So, it's an Oura Ring. A wearable version of WebMD, so that all the hysterics can get themselves into fits of neuroses every time they have an unexpected cough, hiccup, or burp.
Be honest with me ENB - you still wear a COVID mask, don't you.
Finally, an ENB article not about sex workers...
Yea, but I'll bet every dollar I have that her Oura Ring was like, "Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, HPV, Herpes!!!!!" Like, her smartphone was probably screaming it at her from the app.
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared the first continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) for over-the-counter sale—a major win for health freedom and common sense."
Sorry to disagree, Liz, but if this had read, "FDA has been eliminated and pharmaceutical manufacturers will no longer need to meet their draconian regulatory requirements or seek approval for their products," THAT would have been a major win for freedom and common sense. As it is, "Please, Sir ... I want some more ..."
Dean Ornish, Caldwell Esylstein and others proved many times (via clinical trials) that the most effective way to prevent, and the only way to reverse, Type II diabetes (as well as heart disease and stroke) is by eating a whole food plant based diet.
Consistently, populations with the lowest diabetes rates (i.e. China, Japan, India and Africa) have eaten plant based diets for hundreds of thousands of years, although diabetes rates are now skyrocketing among those populations since they began eating the Standard American Diet (SAD) with excessive amounts of meat, fish, dairy, sugar & highly processed grains, but very little vegetables, fruits, beans, seeds and nuts.
Unfortunately, diabetics in America have never been told these nutritional facts, but are instead told (by Big Pharma, Big Medicine, Big Healthcare and Big Government) to take medications to treat diabetes (as well as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and obesity).
Rates of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, obesity, kidney disease, breast/prostate/colon cancers and many other diseases would sharply decline if Americans simply changed their/our diets.
Anyone can do it by sharply increasing consumption of vegetables, fruits, beans, whole grains, nuts and seeds, and by sharply reducing consumption of meat, dairy, fish, added sugars, processed grains and salt.
Yes, Bill - Americans are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and the only reason obesity and diabetes are so prevalent in America is because they believe everything Big Pharma and Big Government tells them. Meanwhile - back here in the real world - almost every medical practitioner tells their patients about healthy diets and portion control at every medical encounter. Then, after failure of that strategy (and having been overwhelmed by decades of economic pressure from Medicare to reduce the cost of healthcare by seeing more patients per day) they give up and fall back on the second line of treatment which is throwing pills at the problem and moving on to the next five-minute appointment.
As I've said many times here before: obesity is programmed into mammals genetically by millions of years of evolution. We are programmed to eat everything available during the summer, storing up fat to be burned off again every winter when natural food is no longer available. Due to human progress and technology it is quite literally always summer now with delicious high-calorie food instantly available all year 'round! We keep storing up fat for a winter that never comes. That is a powerful human instinct, one that is not easily overcome by facts, logic or medical advice. But by all means, proclaim the Anti-Big Pharma fantasy myth narrative if it makes you feel important.