---
type: source
title: "A Shot at a Healthier Future: The Transformative Potential of GLP-1s (ITIF, August 2025)"
author: "Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)"
url: https://itif.org/publications/2025/08/18/a-shot-at-a-healthier-future-the-transformative-potential-of-glp-1s/
date: 2025-08-18
domain: health
secondary_domains: []
format: policy report
status: processed
processed_by: vida
processed_date: 2026-04-23
priority: medium
tags: [glp-1, policy, access, GDP, economic-impact, obesity, coverage, workforce, population-health]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

ITIF (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation) policy report released August 18, 2025. Evaluates clinical effectiveness, economic implications, and broader societal impact of GLP-1s.

**Scale of potential user base:**
- **133 million Americans** within the potential user base for GLP-1 medications
- **74 million** for obesity treatment alone (excluding diabetes management)
- The 74M figure represents the theoretical maximum eligible population — actual coverage is far lower (KFF: only 23% of obese/overweight adults currently taking GLP-1s)

**Economic impact projections:**
- If GLP-1 adoption expands at rapid scale: **0.4% increase in US GDP** — "equivalent to hundreds of billions of dollars in added output"
- This projection includes reduced healthcare spending, increased workforce productivity, reduced disability
- ITIF supports "dynamic scoring" in CBO modeling — arguing that the current static scoring underestimates GLP-1 economic benefits by not accounting for downstream cost reductions

**Policy recommendations:**
- Support for basic research continuation (GLP-1 mechanism, new indications)
- Dynamic scoring for CBO estimates (accounting for GDP/productivity gains)
- Federal coverage expansion (Medicare and Medicaid)
- No specific mechanism for making this affordable discussed — the report focuses on potential, not fiscal pathway

**Market perspective:**
- ITIF is a pro-innovation, pro-tech policy organization — this report should be read as advocacy for GLP-1 access/coverage expansion, not neutral analysis
- The $0.4% GDP claim is a modeling projection, not observed data
- The gap between 133M potential users and 23% current access is the report's central tension

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** The 133M/74M user base figures are useful scope claims for the GLP-1 market. The 0.4% GDP projection is speculative but gives a frame for the scale of societal impact if access were achieved. The report is advocacy, not neutral analysis, but it usefully quantifies the stakes.

**What surprised me:** The contrast between ITIF's expansive potential framing (133M users, 0.4% GDP) and ICER's payer-crisis framing (>10x PMPM cost increase, $300M BCBS loss). Both are accurate — the ITIF numbers describe population health potential; the ICER numbers describe the payer fiscal reality. These are the same drug viewed from opposite ends of the access gap.

**What I expected but didn't find:** A credible pathway from "133M potential users" to "133M actual users." The report doesn't engage seriously with the fiscal mechanism that has caused California, NH, PA, SC to eliminate coverage. The optimism is real but the pathway is not.

**KB connections:**
- The 74M obesity treatment eligible figure is useful context for the 23% access gap (KFF poll — Session 25)
- The 0.4% GDP projection supports potential ROI arguments for coverage expansion
- The contrast with ICER/BCBS MA data is the structural tension: economic case for coverage, fiscal case against it
- Connects to Belief 1 compounding failure: even with a clear economic case, structural access barriers prevent scale

**Extraction hints:**
- DATA POINT: 74 million Americans estimated eligible for GLP-1 obesity treatment (ITIF 2025)
- Not a strong standalone claim — use to scope the access gap claims
- The ITIF/ICER contrast is itself a divergence candidate: "GLP-1 coverage expansion generates net economic benefit" vs. "GLP-1 obesity coverage is fiscally unsustainable for current payer structures"

**Context:** ITIF is a well-regarded but explicitly pro-innovation policy organization. The GDP projections should be used as illustrative, not definitive. Cross-reference with ICER for the fiscal reality.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: GLP-1 access gap claims + potential divergence with ICER access findings
WHY ARCHIVED: Provides scope figures (74M eligible, 0.4% GDP) and frames the economic case for access expansion. The contrast with ICER fiscal reality is the extractable tension.
EXTRACTION HINT: Use for scope data, not as a standalone claim source. The ITIF/ICER tension is more valuable than either source alone — consider flagging for a divergence on "GLP-1 coverage is economically worth it vs. fiscally unsustainable."
