Editorial (Nov. 9, 2025). Why Weight-Loss Drug Prices Are Falling - Competition is working, even as the FTC meddles in a takeover fight in a way . . .

[keangkong]

I've attached a paywall-free editorial from the Wall Street Journal arguing (1) the recent price cuts that Trump negotiated would likely have happened without Trump's intervention and (2) arguing that the US government is too aggressive in trying to find antitrust violations and trying to lower prices. The editorial argues that, paradoxically, not regulating drug prices will result in lower prices. I am not posting it here as a way of agreeing with the article; I do think what they write is interesting. I don't have a position on what they say other than to note that I previously advocated on this forum for something fairly close to the deal that Trump recently negotiated.

Editorial (Nov. 9, 2025). Why Weight-Loss Drug Prices Are Falling - Competition is working, even as the FTC meddles in a takeover fight in a way that helped Pfizer. Wall Street Journal, paywall-free link.

 

[AndyPanda]

This thread is asking to get political.

 

[lessthanhalf]

I am sure all the new members from the UK will be happy to see this.
This is what I get when I look up " why did prices for weight loss drugs go up in the UK? "
"The price of the weight loss jab Mounjaro will rise by up to 170% in the UK, its US manufacturer has said, as Donald Trump ramps up pressure on drugmakers to increase their prices for Europeans so that they can make them more affordable for Americans.14 Aug 2025
https://www.theguardian.com › business › "
Does not affect me in Aus, there is a fairly effective system controlling prices paid to drug makers here if they want to get their medications allowed or subsidised. And the P.M. has made it clear our drug price system is not going to change. Most prescriptions have maximum out of pocket cost of $40 or so, or $8 if unemployed or a pensioner, the government pays the rest, but they have to pass fairly strict cost effectiveness tests to be subsidised , otherwise it is more or less a free market. So far only ozempic is subsidised and only for diabetics, but was $140 aud a month for 1mg/week (about $90usd ) if you were not diabetic, which is not terrible, but higher doses are much more expensive. Tirzepatide is $690 a month for 15mg/week or about $430 usd, which seems horribly overpriced to me but is pretty good by US standards. To have any hope of getting on the subsidised list the price would have to be much much lower. I would have been happy enough with reasonably priced Ozempic if it had not made me so nauseous.
Unfortunately for anyone in the US who is not well off, drug prices there are about the worst in the world, which is what happens when there are minimal restraints on free market pricing. I guess it helps fund the research to create them. But a lot of americans who are poorer die early from not being able to afford preventive medications for hypertension, high cholesterol and undertreated diabetes etc etc.. So in this one particular, very unusual, rare case Trump is actually doing a good thing by negotiating prices down for some medications.
According to the steifel obesity report generic ozempic is going to be $50/month in the US, by 2030. Once some of the Chinese researched drugs get approved locally ( one is already ) and then make it to the US, it should put a lot of pressure on pricing, as I cannot imagine them not competing on price, and that should start happening by 2027/28. And they already have the infrastructure and skilled people to make them at scale thanks to the grey/black market.
And there is the at least 100 or so other anti obesity drugs in development, given that most are GLP-1 type drugs there is a good chance many will make it and hopefully produce extreme competition, once there are a dozen or more different ones, pushing prices down more, and hopefully effectiveness up.

 

[Zydeceltico]

This is what I get when I look up " why did prices for weight loss drugs go up in the UK? "
"The price of the weight loss jab Mounjaro will rise by up to 170% in the UK, its US manufacturer has said, as Donald Trump ramps up pressure on drugmakers to increase their prices for Europeans so that they can make them more affordable for Americans.14 Aug 2025
https://www.theguardian.com › business › "

Unfortunately for anyone in the US who is not well off, drug prices there are about the worst in the world, which is what happens when there are minimal restraints on free market pricing. I guess it helps fund the research to create them. But a lot of americans who are poorer die early from not being able to afford preventive medications for hypertension, high cholesterol and undertreated diabetes etc etc.. So in this one particular, very unusual, rare case Trump is actually doing a good thing by negotiating prices down for some medications.
According to the steifel obesity report generic ozempic is going to be $50/month in the US, by 2030. Once some of the Chinese researched drugs get approved locally ( one is already ) and then make it to the US, it should put a lot of pressure on pricing, as I cannot imagine them not competing on price, and that should start happening by 2027/28. And they already have the infrastructure and skilled people to make them at scale thanks to the grey/black market.

Reading multiple articles past the click-bait "Trump has lowered - blah blah blah" and digested that #1 he hasn't lowered anything that wasn't already going to be lowered and #2 this is not even close to saying that weight-loss drugs will be lowered for the generally over-weight and in-need population. The criteria to receive the big lowered-cost benefits are still leaving the vast majority of people at the whim and algorithm of insurance companies and state's governments (Medicaid).

This is not a miracle waving of the hand and it all becomes suddenly just and wonderful.

In general, this "news" is not worth considering seriously for the great majority of people.

 

[MsGizmo]

I've attached a paywall-free editorial from the Wall Street Journal arguing (1) the recent price cuts that Trump negotiated would likely have happened without Trump's intervention and (2) arguing that the US government is too aggressive in trying to find antitrust violations and trying to lower prices. The editorial argues that, paradoxically, not regulating drug prices will result in lower prices. I am not posting it here as a way of agreeing with the article; I do think what they write is interesting. I don't have a position on what they say other than to note that I previously advocated on this forum for something fairly close to the deal that Trump recently negotiated.

Editorial (Nov. 9, 2025). Why Weight-Loss Drug Prices Are Falling - Competition is working, even as the FTC meddles in a takeover fight in a way that helped Pfizer. Wall Street Journal, paywall-free link.

Its the grey market that has been really cutting into the profit margins of GLP1 drugs and it is problem for them that is only going to increase and they know it. They know that they are never going to be able to prevent its the importation into their most profitable market ... USA. So the only thing they could do is expand insurance coverage and the only way to get that is through Medicaid and Medicare first.

The competition of other companies developing newer versions was not gong to lower prices because they have been price fixing for years. They base their asking prices for a new drug based on the asking price of older drugs. Lets say they come up with a new cancer drug that is likely to take the place of an older one. The asking price for the new one is higher than the old one .. The old one doesn't get cheaper.

Not even the development of a generic is reducing prices by very much anymore. As an example let's look at Farxiga. Its a drug for type 2 diabetes that has a retail cost of $719 per month. The price for the newly released generic is $559 per month. Sure, its a savings of $160 ... but $559 is still unaffordable. While most people won't see the price because its usually covered by insurance ... its STILL happening in the background causing the overall cost of US healthcare to go up.

 

[MsGizmo]

This thread is asking to get political.

Unfortunately, the issue of government involvement in any way is going to make it political. Personally, I think the REAL problem on this issue doesn't have anything to do with the government per se. Its the long standing problem of society considering obesity to be a moral failing and not a legitimate medical issue. That is the main reason why weight loss drugs haven't been covered. It has zero to do with the price. Sure the high price makes insurance companies not want to cover them ... but fat shaming is how they got away with it.

 

[Zydeceltico]

...The editorial argues that, paradoxically, not regulating drug prices will result in lower prices.......

Editorial (Nov. 9, 2025). Why Weight-Loss Drug Prices Are Falling - Competition is working, even as the FTC meddles in a takeover fight in a way that helped Pfizer. Wall Street Journal, paywall-free link.

Remember how trickle down theory worked out? JFC

 

[MsGizmo]

Remember how trickle down theory worked out? JFC

Oh ... don't you mean trickle up poverty?

 

[Jack brown]

There is still a good argument for treating these drug companies like heroes - thousands of life saving medicines etc.
And from that perspective any marginal decrease in new R&D is literally lives lost.
WSJ editorial board seems like the only level-headed people in media right now, everyone is so political 🙂

Remember how trickle down theory worked out? JFC

 

[Zydeceltico]

There is still a good argument for treating these drug companies like heroes - thousands of life saving medicines etc.
And from that perspective any marginal decrease in new R&D is literally lives lost.
WSJ editorial board seems like the only level-headed people in media right now, everyone is so political 🙂

"heroes" is a mighty big word for a publicly-traded corporation.

 

[Jack brown]

"heroes" is a mighty big word for a publicly-traded corporation.

Good point. I'm more trying to say that to make our culture less dysfunctional, we should try to make good things high status.
So instead of pursuing high status by virtue signaling, we as a society give high status to people/firms that create new things or save lives.

 

[Summer48]

I’m in the uk and due to the awful price rise of Mounjaro I won’t / can’t buy any more ( although I stockpiled quite a few before the rises) but even if prices did come down I’ve now got enough in freezer (vials) for the next 4 years for myself and grandson. So they can stick their Mounjaro up where the sun doesn’t shine

 

[Jack brown]

I don't understand that in countries like the UK where healthcare is mostly government funded... why not just buy the country specific patent, and sell it to people at cost?

You'd surely make a return on your investment in decrease in costs to the NHS. And buying out the patent instead of regulating wouldn't distort further drug development. Seems like a panacea policy.

 

[Summer48]

I don't understand that in countries like the UK where healthcare is mostly government funded... why not just buy the country specific patent, and sell it to people at cost?

You'd surely make a return on your investment in decrease in costs to the NHS. And buying out the patent instead of regulating wouldn't distort further drug development. Seems like a panacea policy.

 

[Summer48]

That would mean someone being sensible!!

 

[MsGizmo]

There is still a good argument for treating these drug companies like heroes - thousands of life saving medicines etc.
And from that perspective any marginal decrease in new R&D is literally lives lost.
WSJ editorial board seems like the only level-headed people in media right now, everyone is so political 🙂

Research was being done long before modern pharma companies existed.

 

[Zydeceltico]

.....give high status to people/firms that create new things or save lives.

In that case my hat is off to the industrious Heroic Chinese Grey Vendors - all of them - for providing an actual affordable life-changing, life-saving resource to thousands of us at a miniscule profit compared to the stock-yield-driven EL (and others) mechanism. Yes - they (big pharma) need capital to develop these drugs and it is also true that the vast majority of us on this forum (and every other one in the entire world) woud not be eligible for a prescription if we could even find a doctor who would be open to writing one given the eligibilty requirements and also could not afford $1000/month for more than zero months if we even could procure a prescription that fits the myopic requirements currently. I did not meet the standard criteria. Thus I struggle to peceive the "heroic" or even virtuous intent. In the meantime, I'm 62 and not on Medicaid or Medicare and heart disease runs in my family and, until June of this year, was 45 lbs overweight with a non-ruptured aneurysm. I've lost that 45 lbs in 5 months and greatly reduced my risk of heart attack and stroke and my lipids are healthy again. There was no waiting for medicare eligibility to fulfill corporate requirements for actually affordable healthcare. None of this would have been feasible paying the "heroes'" toll. So let's hear it for the Chinese Robin Hoods (wanky as they can sometimes be)!

 

[Zydeceltico]

That would mean someone being sensible!!

and not entirely profit driven