[delayed]
GLP-1 isn’t new - the first trials were 20 years ago & there’s a lot of long term data from its use in diabetes management, prior to the weight loss application.
Ok, sure - but are diabetes patients representative of the whole target market for GLP-1? And there will still be an uncomfortable variable that controls the outcome - patient compliance. That's what makes life insurers woozy.
I didn't have look on the studies but I would not be surprised if a decent amount of participants were completely healthy individuals. And maybe (more from random sampling) some unsuspicious mildly overweight without other problems. Especially in the earlier cohorts of testing.
Re:GLP-1s Are Breaking Life Insurance
by refulgentis on Tuesday July 15, 2025 @07:35PM
(#44577058)
Right, you should read it though, we're in the weeds over here, it's not just sort of free-assocating chat, we're picking apart specific things about the article. One of them, as I mentioned 4 up, is that the study with the 65% # is confounded because the groupings involve type 1 diabetes, and also, the number rebounds higher than the # who stopped
I've been on GLP-1 for a month and my triglycerides halved, and my cholesterol dropped to the levels it was in my twenties. If that's not a predictor of lower mortality, there's something wrong with our fundamental medical knowledge.
Has your weight dropped?
Yes, I lost around 4kg. Though the triglycerides and cholesterol are mostly because I stopped eating sweets and fatty foods, not because of the weight loss itself.
Re:GLP-1s Are Breaking Life Insurance
by refulgentis on Tuesday July 15, 2025 @07:41PM
(#44577104)
I agree! (is this responding to part of my comment? :) )
Oh hmm, I may have replied to the wrong comment!
Re:GLP-1s Are Breaking Life Insurance
by FergusArgyll on Monday July 14, 2025 @08:00AM
(#44559100)
The slippage part of the article is definitely bogus. The origin of the graph [0] attributes it to Accelerated Underwriting programs.
[0] https://www.swissre.com/reinsurance/life-and-health/l-h-risk...
Then from there, I click through the 65% #, assuming they have a good study on 65% of people stop after a year. Nah, they don't. It's super complex but tl;dr: specific cohort, and somehow the # getting on it in year 2 is higher than the # of people who quit in year 1.
I have a weak to medium prior, after 10m evaluating, that the entire thing might be built on more sand than it admits.
Lot of little slants that create an absolute tone - ex. multiple payouts over the "lifetime" of a life insurance policy. (sure, it's technically possible)
Also there's no citation for the idea this mortality slippage happened because of GLP-1, and it's been out for...what...a year? Maybe two?
That's an awful lot of people who were about to die, saved in the nick of time by...losing weight? Again, possible, I'm sure it even happened in some cases.
Enough to skew mortality slippage from 5.3% to 15.3%?
I thought they were 98% accurate?
Wait...is the slippage graph net life increase slippage? Or any slippage?
Because it's very strange this explosion happened in exactly the year of a global pandemic that had sky-high mortality rates for older people.