vida: extract claims from 2026-04-22-kff-medicaid-glp1-coverage-13-states
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled

- Source: inbox/queue/2026-04-22-kff-medicaid-glp1-coverage-13-states.md
- Domain: health
- Claims: 0, Entities: 0
- Enrichments: 4
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Vida <PIPELINE>
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents 2026-04-22 07:48:59 +00:00
parent ec127765fc
commit 2ef55ee618
3 changed files with 26 additions and 6 deletions

View file

@ -1,14 +1,13 @@
--- ---
type: divergence type: divergence
title: "Is the GLP-1 economic problem unsustainable chronic costs or wasted investment from low persistence?"
domain: health domain: health
description: "These are opposite cost problems from the same drug class — one assumes lifelong use drives inflation, the other shows 85% discontinuation undermines the chronic model. The answer determines payer strategy, formulary design, and the health domain's cost trajectory claims." description: "These are opposite cost problems from the same drug class — one assumes lifelong use drives inflation, the other shows 85% discontinuation undermines the chronic model. The answer determines payer strategy, formulary design, and the health domain's cost trajectory claims."
status: open
claims:
- "GLP-1 receptor agonists are the largest therapeutic category launch in pharmaceutical history but their chronic use model makes the net cost impact inflationary through 2035.md"
- "glp-1-persistence-drops-to-15-percent-at-two-years-for-non-diabetic-obesity-patients-undermining-chronic-use-economics.md"
surfaced_by: leo
created: 2026-03-19 created: 2026-03-19
status: open
title: Is the GLP-1 economic problem unsustainable chronic costs or wasted investment from low persistence?
claims: ["GLP-1 receptor agonists are the largest therapeutic category launch in pharmaceutical history but their chronic use model makes the net cost impact inflationary through 2035.md", "glp-1-persistence-drops-to-15-percent-at-two-years-for-non-diabetic-obesity-patients-undermining-chronic-use-economics.md"]
surfaced_by: leo
related: ["divergence-glp1-economics-chronic-cost-vs-low-persistence", "GLP-1 receptor agonists are the largest therapeutic category launch in pharmaceutical history but their chronic use model makes the net cost impact inflationary through 2035", "glp-1-persistence-drops-to-15-percent-at-two-years-for-non-diabetic-obesity-patients-undermining-chronic-use-economics", "lower-income-patients-show-higher-glp-1-discontinuation-rates-suggesting-affordability-not-just-clinical-factors-drive-persistence", "the healthcare cost curve bends up through 2035 because new curative and screening capabilities create more treatable conditions faster than prices decline"]
--- ---
# Is the GLP-1 economic problem unsustainable chronic costs or wasted investment from low persistence? # Is the GLP-1 economic problem unsustainable chronic costs or wasted investment from low persistence?
@ -53,3 +52,10 @@ Relevant Notes:
Topics: Topics:
- [[_map]] - [[_map]]
## Extending Evidence
**Source:** KFF Medicaid GLP-1 Coverage Analysis, January 2026
The coverage landscape is bifurcating: some states expanding GLP-1 access while others (California, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina) actively cut it. This creates a policy divergence where budget constraints override clinical benefit logic, with the BALANCE Model (CMS innovation model launching May 2026) attempting federal expansion concurrent with state-level contractions.

View file

@ -25,3 +25,10 @@ States with the highest obesity rates (Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana at
**Source:** KFF Medicaid GLP-1 Coverage Analysis, January 2026 **Source:** KFF Medicaid GLP-1 Coverage Analysis, January 2026
As of January 2026, only 13 states (26% of state programs) cover GLP-1s for obesity under fee-for-service Medicaid, despite nearly 40% of adults and 25% of children with Medicaid having obesity. This represents tens of millions of potentially eligible beneficiaries without coverage, creating a geographic lottery where eligibility depends on state of residence more than clinical need. As of January 2026, only 13 states (26% of state programs) cover GLP-1s for obesity under fee-for-service Medicaid, despite nearly 40% of adults and 25% of children with Medicaid having obesity. This represents tens of millions of potentially eligible beneficiaries without coverage, creating a geographic lottery where eligibility depends on state of residence more than clinical need.
## Extending Evidence
**Source:** KFF Medicaid GLP-1 Coverage Analysis, January 2026
As of January 2026, only 13 states (26% of state programs) cover GLP-1s for obesity under fee-for-service Medicaid, despite nearly 40% of adults and 25% of children with Medicaid having obesity. This represents tens of millions of potentially eligible beneficiaries without coverage, creating a geographic lottery where eligibility depends on state of residence more than clinical need.

View file

@ -24,3 +24,10 @@ As of January 2026, only 13 states (26% of state programs) cover GLP-1s for obes
**Source:** KFF Medicaid GLP-1 Coverage Analysis, January 2026 **Source:** KFF Medicaid GLP-1 Coverage Analysis, January 2026
Four states actively eliminated GLP-1 obesity coverage in 2025-2026: California, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. California's Medi-Cal projected costs rising from $85M in FY2025-26 to $680M by 2028-29, an 8x increase in three years. This represents active reversal of access gains, not just stagnation. Four states actively eliminated GLP-1 obesity coverage in 2025-2026: California, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. California's Medi-Cal projected costs rising from $85M in FY2025-26 to $680M by 2028-29, an 8x increase in three years. This represents active reversal of access gains, not just stagnation.
## Supporting Evidence
**Source:** KFF Medicaid GLP-1 Coverage Analysis, January 2026
Four states eliminated GLP-1 obesity coverage in 2025-2026 due to budget pressure: California, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. California's Medi-Cal projected costs of $85M in FY2025-26 rising to $680M by 2028-29 drove the elimination decision. This represents active reversal of access gains, not just stagnation.