{{item.videoDuration}}
{{item.title}}
{{item.text}}
{{item.videoDuration}}
{{item.text}}
Over the past year, GLP-1s moved from a clinical treatment to a cultural phenomenon. Consumer interest in the medications, now available in pill form as well as injections, continues to accelerate, often driven by the potential of better health and quality of life related to weight loss. But for employers, this can create a strategic challenge: how to support employees’ health needs while managing rising pharmacy costs.
With appropriate clinical support, GLP-1s may work for many patients. The challenge is in balancing the rapid consumer adoption of a single drug class within the existing benefit structure, particularly when that drug class sits at the intersection of clinical intervention, drug adherence, metabolic health, nutrition, exercise, and behavioral wellness. Many employees aren’t thinking about GLP-1s in isolation; they see them as part of their broader health journey. How employers respond to that expectation, thoughtfully, and with a clear strategy, can matter more than any single coverage decision.
Employers should develop strategies that go beyond a single coverage decision—connecting clinical care, benefits design, and navigation support in ways that can adapt as the landscape shifts.
The employer dilemma
Considering that many Americans receive healthcare coverage through employer-sponsored insurance plans, employer decisions on GLP-1s for weight loss could have an outsized impact on access, affordability, and population health. At the same time, employers are balancing the demand for these medications against budget realities and the goal of supporting their broader workforces equitably. The ground also keeps shifting. New clinical evidence is expanding the range of conditions GLP-1s may address. New medications are entering the market and pricing models are in flux. Decisions made today may have to be revisited sooner than employers expect. Three key factors are converging:
- Intensifying employee demand: Adoption is accelerating as indications expand beyond diabetes and weight management and as employees experience tangible health improvements. But this isn’t entirely new territory. Many employers have long invested in wellness programs, chronic disease management, and preventive care as part of a broader strategy that supporting employee health pays dividends over time. Employers who connect GLP-1s to those existing investments have an opportunity to strengthen their overall health strategy and demonstrate that their benefits programs are keeping pace with where medicine is heading.
- Fixed budgets and contracting constraints: GLP-1 pricing remains high relative to other chronic therapies, which can limit employers' ability to absorb widespread adoption without making tradeoffs elsewhere. Those tradeoffs may be further complicated by existing pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) contracts. In some cases, manufacturer direct-to-consumer pricing can fall below an employer's net cost through the traditional pharmacy channel, but switching channels can affect rebates, contract guarantees, and clinical management in ways that may not be immediately visible. Medication persistence adds another layer: Claims analyses suggest steep drop-off rates by years one and two, making initiation criteria and ongoing maintenance support an economic consideration as well as a clinical one.
- Rising pharmacy costs and the value of a clear strategy: According to PwC analysis, large self-funded employers covering GLP-1s for weight loss are seeing pharmacy trend increases exceeding 20% year over year, even with utilization controls in place. By contrast, employers that cover GLP-1s for diabetes, but not for weight loss, are seeing trends in the low teens. Some employers exclude GLP1-s for weight loss in their standard pharmacy benefits but offer them through subsidized add-on benefits for eligible employees.
For employers that aren't covering GLP-1s for weight loss, however, or are considering limiting coverage, the alternative isn't simply avoidance. It typically means pointing employees interested in GLP-1s for weight loss toward direct-to-consumer programs, manufacturer affordability offerings, or other pathways outside the traditional benefit structure. But those options may come with their own cost, quality, and continuity considerations that employers should understand before assuming they represent a straightforward savings opportunity. The dynamics of this issue are complex, and coverage decisions often carry cost implications that can affect the broader workforce, not just those using the medications.
Coverage decisions that might seem straightforward on the surface—cover or don't cover—carry consequences that ripple across workforce health, plan sustainability, and employee trust. The complexity deserves a clear-eyed strategy to match.
A framework for decision-making
There’s no universal playbook. Workforce demographics, financial constraints, and strategic priorities can vary widely across organizations. But several approaches are emerging that help balance access, accountability, and affordability:
- Coverage criteria and clinical integration: Many employers are tying GLP-1 coverage for weight loss to specific eligibility criteria (e.g., body mass index) and ongoing engagement requirements such as coaching, routine monitoring, and lifestyle modification programs. For weight loss, this approach, which can be supported by point solution partners, emphasizes that medication works better as part of a broader health strategy, not as a replacement for behavior change. The goal is to align clinical outcomes with cost management, ensuring appropriate utilization while supporting employees in sustaining long-term health improvements.
- Tiered cost-sharing to preserve access: Some employers are increasing employee contributions for GLP-1s prescribed for weight loss, in some cases to twice the standard branded drug copay, to maintain access while managing plan affordability. This approach is generally not applied to GLP-1s used to treat diabetes, where standard cost structures remain in place. Cost-sharing recognizes that when a benefit category drives disproportionate cost growth, sharing those costs with employees who benefit can help maintain sustainability without removing coverage altogether.
- Alternative access pathways: Employers facing significant cost pressure around GLP-1s prescribed for weight loss seem to be exploring options outside traditional pharmacy benefits—such as direct-to-consumer programs, subsidized add-on benefits, manufacturer-sponsored offerings, or specialty networks with trained providers. These models often pair medication access with employer-funded coaching or wellness support, delivering care at substantially lower cost. This solution is gaining traction as a middle-ground between broad coverage and no coverage. For GLP-1s prescribed to manage diabetes, however, employers generally want to maintain those within the traditional pharmacy benefit structure to maintain clinical oversight, continuity of care, and appropriate management.
- Portfolio decisions, not binary choices: Many employers seem to be shifting the question from "should we cover GLP-1s?" to “how does our approach to metabolic health fit within our overall health and wellbeing strategy?” This means evaluating how decisions about this drug class intersect with existing investments in diabetes management, cardiovascular health, mental health support, and workplace productivity—and whether the overall portfolio is working together or pulling in different directions. Structured employee listening and preference analytics can help employers understand what their workforce actually values across health and wellbeing broadly, rather than reacting to the loudest demand at the moment.
For employers with younger, growth-oriented workforces, prioritizing access may align with broader wellness, attraction, and retention goals. For those under significant cost pressure, structuring or phasing coverage while exploring alternative pathways may be more appropriate. And for many employers, it’s important to consider their employee demographics and how they can better drive long-term health outcome improvements and cost reductions, not just a lower number on the scale next year.
What employees should be provided with
Beyond coverage policy, employees should be provided with navigation support. As access pathways increase, many people are considering whether medication is appropriate, calculating out-of-pocket costs, and trying to understand how GLP-1s fit alongside exercise, nutrition, and mental health support. As more employees become decision-makers when it comes to GLP1-s, they may be looking for support to become more empowered consumers.
Navigating that kind of complexity isn't new for employers. Benefits programs have long tried to guide employees through health decisions that span multiple systems. GLP-1s can add another layer, but they can also create an opening. Providing education about options, transparent cost comparisons, and integration between pharmacy benefits and wellness programs lets employers create a more coherent experience, so employees don't have to coordinate their own care. People don't often think in categories like pharmacy versus medical, or prevention versus treatment. They may think holistically and expect their employers to help them make informed decisions.
Building for change
The GLP-1 landscape is evolving rapidly. Clinical evidence continues to develop, new medications enter the market, pricing models shift, and regulatory frameworks remain in flux. In turn, employers should develop adaptable systems that regularly monitor utilization trends, assess outcomes, and maintain flexibility to adjust coverage, cost-sharing, or access pathways. But doing that requires clear decision criteria, ongoing evaluation of vendor performance, and a realistic acknowledgment of uncertainty, risk, and tradeoffs. Unlike many benefit decisions, which can be set and revisited on an annual cycle, GLP-1 strategy should move faster, making flexibility a feature of good benefits design, not just a response to uncertainty.
Organizations that navigate this evolution well can manage costs effectively while building benefits programs that employees genuinely trust and value. Coverage is a starting point, not a strategy. The employers who understand that distinction, and act on it, can be better positioned to lead in workforce health.
Ready to build a benefits strategy that keeps pace with change?
Managing GLP-1 costs is just one piece of a larger puzzle. At PwC, we help organizations align total rewards with a holistic workforce strategy to help your people—and your business—stay ready for what's next.
{{filterContent.facetedTitle}}
{{contentList.loadingText}}
{{contentList.loadingText}}
Contact us
Follow us
