Latest News

Realistic_Photograph_Heavyset_Woman_Self_Injecting-GLP1-Diabetes-Insulin.jpeg
DTC-In-Perspective by Bob Ehrlich

Weight Loss DTC Will Boom: GLP-1 Drugs Reshape the Market

December 10, 2024 0

The obesity drug market potential is staggering. America is overweight. I am overweight. My friends are overweight. Willpower is obviously not the solution because most of us cannot sustain it. We need to get by with a little help. About 40% of adults in America are obese according to the CDC. Thankfully, we have two currently approved drugs in the GLP-1 category. Wegovy and Zepbound from Novo Nordisk and Lilly, respectively, currently lead the category. Others will follow.

There has never been a category so suitable for DTC advertising. High incidence, easy understanding of the condition, and fast action to see results are the hallmarks of a no brainer DTC drug. A JP Morgan analyst predicted the GLP-1 obesity market will grow to $71 billion by 2032. There are about 110 million Americans who could benefit from using obesity drugs. Currently only about 6% are using them according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Wegovy has been blasting its availability over the past year. We have all seen the great march of people down the street DTC ad. The power of “we”. Lilly’s Zepbound started DTC advertising mid-November. Supply issues made advertising unnecessary until capacity issues were resolved. Production has been recently expanded according to Lilly.

Lilly has set up its direct distribution system to consumers to offer that alternative to regular channels of retail pharmacies. They are ready to promote demand growth.

You can count on several new competitors in the next few years as the great gold rush for this market is making drug makers salivate. Lilly and Novo Nordisk know their premium priced drugs will be facing lower priced entries. The window for maximizing sales at premium prices is short. Insurers will be gradually increasing coverage because the added benefits of these drugs are exciting. At current prices, insurers are not rushing to cover them.

The weight loss category from GLP-1 drugs is set to become a massive DTC advertising spender, reshaping how America addresses obesity and its related health challenges.

Research studies are showing a litany of health outcomes beyond weight loss such as reducing blood sugar, blood pressure, heart disease, addictive behaviors, and potentially dementia. It is just a matter of time before they are covered because of the potential reduction in costs of treating heart disease, diabetes, and dementia.

The pressure will be on drug makers to make these drugs more affordable to the average American. Hearings in Congress were recently held with the Novo Nordisk CEO to pressure the company to lower prices on Ozempic and Wegovy, which run about $1,200 a month for self-pay. Discount cards are available, so the real consumer price is about $600 a month unless covered by insurance.

DTC ads will help keep demand high and new competitors will eventually drive down price. Expanding capacity will allow both Lilly and Novo Nordisk to reduce price and make it up on volume. After all, better to have more customers on these drugs for years at affordable prices than have them start and stop due to cost.

Once we see new competitors, we will see DTC ads evolve to highlight brand advantages. Those might be based on price, form of dose as in pill or injection, frequency needed, side effects, efficacy of weight loss, or other collateral health benefits. The weight loss category from GLP-1 drugs is going to be a massive DTC spender for years to come.

Bob Ehrlich

GLP1-injector-pen-shutterstock.jpg
DTC-In-Perspective by Bob Ehrlich

Bernie Sanders Hearing on Drug Prices

November 6, 2024 0

On September 24, Novo Nordisk CEO Lars Jørgensen testified before the Senate which I watched on C-SPAN. He was asked to appear to discuss the reasons for high prices for GLP-1 diabetes drug Ozempic and its weight loss sister drug Wegovy. The savaging of drug company pricing policies is an ongoing cause for Sen. Sanders.

Bernie pointed out in his opening statement that US prices for Ozempic and Wegovy are multiples of their price in Germany, the UK, Canada, and other European countries. With his usual outrage, Bernie demanded answers from big pharma. Mr. Jørgensen had a few reasons for higher prices, most important that the list prices are high because Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) want drugs with high list prices. This is because rebates to them are a percent of list price. According to Mr. Jørgensen, Novo only gets 26% of the list price, the rest going to PBMs.

He also said that insurance companies set the net price consumers pay, not drug companies. Bernie then said that even with PBM rebates US prices are still too high. There was no definitive answer given by Mr. Jørgensen on the reasons for the difference between US and European pricing. What was clear was neither Republicans nor Democrats were satisfied they got their answers. Senators seemed frustrated with the complex nature of drug pricing and want legislative action on how PBMs get compensated.

The reality is that US drug prices are higher because the drug makers face price controls in most other countries. Prices would be lower if PBMs were cut out of the loop but still be higher than Canada or Europe. The US consumer partially subsidizes R&D for the world. That is unfair, of course, but reality. If Bernie got his wish and drug companies charged the European price, we would have less R&D. Mr. Jørgensen pointed out Novo Nordisk is spending $30 billion on increasing manufacturing capacity and $4.2 billion on Diabetes R&D last year. He said their annual R&D budget was more than the National Institutes of Health spent. If US drug prices historically matched Europe, it is likely we would not have Ozempic or Wegovy available today.

Innovative drugs like Wegovy will come down in price as production is ramped up and competitors enter the market. The obesity market is huge and Wegovy and Lilly’s Mounjaro will grow exponentially if price comes down significantly. Their makers know this and once they have enough production capacity, they will cut prices and vastly expand usage. Their large DTC spending shows how much they think they can grow the market.

As the GLPs increasingly show health benefits beyond diabetes and obesity, such as for cardiovascular and kidney disease, it is imperative that prices are low enough to get mass use covered by insurers and affordable for direct pay patients. Our collective health may depend on a significant cut in prices.

Bob Ehrlich

A_professional_scene_depicting_a_group_of_scientis.jpg
DTC-In-Perspective by Bob Ehrlich

DTC in Perspective: Drug Prices in DTC Ads? Bad Idea Gets Traction.

September 5, 2018 0

The Senate recently passed an amendment to a larger health care bill that requires drug prices be disclosed in DTC Ads. The Durbin amendment was adopted with bipartisan support. It really just gives HHS a million dollars to study a way to require the disclosure. What is clear is this idea has strong support from President Trump, Congress, HHS Secretary Azar, and the American Medical Association. So, like it or not, the drug advertisers may be forced to add some price information to ads.

Bob Ehrlich
“Drug makers may be forced to add… price information to ads.”
-Bob Ehrlich

On the surface, that list price disclosure seems reasonable. We see MSRP in car ads, so we know whether it is a premium or economy car. Not that we don’t know that already but it is not unreasonable. For cars, we know we will likely pay somewhat less than MSRP but we do know the range a Mercedes will cost us. Congress thinks consumers deserve to know the price of drugs they see advertised. To Congress that seems like it would help consumers decide if this advertised drug should be considered.

Drug pricing is not like car pricing. Consumers pay much less than the list price and sometimes pay nothing for the $50000 drug for cancer. Admittedly, drug pricing is a Byzantine process that confounds most of us. Each insurance company, PBM, and government payer negotiates prices. Each consumer depending on their insurance pays a different price no way near the list price. Sometimes the consumer would pay out of pocket more for their OTC cough medicine than the $50000 cancer drug.

So how should drug companies disclose drug prices? If the list price is not anywhere near what consumers pay, then how does disclosing it help them? It does not. It helps insurance companies in making DTC more difficult for drug companies to execute. The knowledgeable legislators know that if they force drug makers to talk about price that may discourage them from doing DTC Ads for expensive drugs. Drug makers advertising the $100000 cancer drug may decide that DTC is not worth trying to explain the complexities of drug pricing or face the barrage of criticism for having a sticker shock price.

I think this is the real reason for this amendment. Embarrassing drug companies they hope will put a chill on DTC for cancer drugs, biologics for arthritis, Crohn’s, and other new premium drugs. Of course, all drugs will face a guidance on how pricing needs to be discussed. Somehow FDA will make disclosure a time consuming step in a DTC ad. That will add 10-15 seconds to the ad and may make them difficult to execute. Their hope is to get drug companies to stop doing DTC.

So the good news is it will take FDA a while to study and draft guidance for disclosing price. This lag may allow the powerful advertising lobby to show how impractical this disclosure requirement will be. My guess is we may have some compromise that speaks in terms of ranges of price. That is something like “most patients will pay much less than the price listed depending on your insurance coverage.” Or, drug makers may be able to say “the average price paid by consumers is x.”

It may be illegal to require drug makers to disclose price under commercial free speech grounds. I am sure the advertising lobby will argue this inhibits commercial speech. They would have a strong case based on precedent.

My advice to the agencies is to be ready to deal with adding some price statement but I am sure it will be a few years before FDA can figure out how best to do this. They research everything they do and that will take a long time to study. DTC price disclosure sounds great but is just a bad idea that will not help patients.

Bob Ehrlich