The economics of Ozempic 

We’ve all heard of Ozempic at one point or another. Our favorite celebrities (including Oprah Winfrey and Elon Musk) use Ozempic/similar drugs daily. Ozempic, or Semaglutide, was originally a prescription drug for type 2 diabetes; however, it is now one of the most well-known weight-loss drugs, as it is known to actively reduce appetite and reduce body weight by 15%. Its creator, Novo Nordisk, has become the highest valued public European company multiple times in the last few years, and it has only been challenged by the likes of SAP and LVMH. However, despite the strong economic case for Ozempic, its social and secondary economic impacts remain contentious. 

Ozempic’s positive economic impact 

Ozempic has multiple potential benefits that it could bring to the table for society. The most notable of which is its potential to cure weight-related diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), etc. For the NHS, obesity-related diseases cost over £100bn per annum. Thus, despite Ozempic’s cost(£200/month) for every user, if used correctly on the groups with the highest cardiovascular disease risk (considering family history, BF% & etc.) Ozempic use could potentially benefit the tax-burdened UK government, which could spend more money on its financial growth through regeneration programs or governmental subsidization of the quaternary sector. 

Furthermore, studies find that weight loss leads to a combination of increased focus, energy levels, and fewer sick days. Thus, the drug could improve the efficiency of a country’s workers, as countries with high medical standards, such as the UK, still experience over 185 million working days lost from sick days alone. Especially when considering those considered “overweight” by medical standards were more likely to take sick leave. 

Ozempic’s negative economic impact 

The rise of Ozempic has led to a decrease in the economic opportunities for the food industry. Some effects are relatively positive, as the decreased consumption of ultra-processed food leads to a longer lifespan. However, from an economic standpoint, decreased consumerism could be detrimental to stock prices. For example, companies such as McDonald’s, Hershey’s, and General Mills have all experienced a period of relative skepticism in the last few years. As analysts have downgraded their ratings due to estimates stating that soft drink, snacks, and cake consumption will decrease by 4% in 10 years**. This is because Ozempic threatens to take away the most loyal fast-food consumers. Many companies from the food industry rely heavily on “ultra-consumers” who take up a majority of their sales. For example, in the US, approximately 9% of the adult population takes up 35%*** of candy/sweets consumption. Thus, a widespread use of Ozempic, especially when considering that 9% are more likely to take Ozempic as they are more likely to be overweight, could decrease sales by a significant proportion. Even if one-third of the 9% took Ozempic, the sales for the company could drop by over 10%. 

Drugs such as Ozempic may be seen as costly to create due to the production that requires a full setup of a GM yeast farm with sterile conditions. However, this could not be far from the truth. In the US, those with type 2 diabetes and insurance receive the drug for $25 per month; however, retail prices for cosmetic use or those without insurance can skyrocket up to $1,300 per month ($15.6k a year). Despite the cost to the consumer, however, studies show that Ozempic only costs $5 to make, package, and deliver. This brings about the question of whether the presence of Ozempic leads to a greater socioeconomic divide. Of course, those who can lose weight from the drug experience a virtuous cycle of better health, which leads to a further betterment of their career (earning up to 10%* more), allowing those individuals to increase their disposable income in order to improve their quality of life. On the other hand, however, the high demand decreases the price elasticity, meaning consumers are less responsive to price changes. Therefore, those who have low disposable income are disproportionately harmed, leading to over 14% of the Diabetic US population spending more than 40% of their post-subsistenceincome on insulin alone, reducing socioeconomic mobility as they are less likely to be able to afford goods/services that may improve their QOL. (e.g., education) This is exacerbated by the fact that type 2 diabetes is overwhelmingly more present in more deprived areas in HICs. Those with enough caloric access but without the income to buy healthier foods and attain health literacy are more likely to get type 2 diabetes, which often stems from poor diet and lack of physical activity, although family history is important. 

In summary, Ozempic’s rapid growth since its approval by the FDA in 2017 must be met with some level of caution. While its short-term benefits can be seen as attractive(economically and for the body), the drug may dig a deeper gap between the wealthy and the economically disadvantaged, while also leading to an unexpected negative effect on quality of life due to its potential side effects, including nausea, vomiting, and its impact on the gallbladder. 

*Journal of Labor Research (2005) * * Morgan Stanley (2025)  ** * Food institute (2024)