Should Insurers Cover Kids’ Obesity Drugs? Experts Say It’s Long Overdue.

Treatments are largely out of reach for communities that need them most.

Sandro Rybak

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Earlier this year, one of the nation’s most influential medical associations released a new set of guidelines for treating childhood obesity. And it nearly broke the internet.

The recommendations, issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics for the first time in 16 years, say that pediatricians should stop taking a “watchful waiting” approach and instead embrace early, aggressive action to treat children and teens with obesity, which AAP defines as having a body mass index, or BMI, at or above the 95th percentile for a child’s age and sex. The group recommends “intensive health behavior and lifestyle treatment” for families with children as young as 2 years old, and in addition, weight-loss drugs for children 12 and up, and surgery for children 13 and up with severe obesity.

The reason for the shift in guidelines, experts tell me, is not only that doctors have more experience with weight-loss surgery and drugs than ever before, but also that the field’s understanding of obesity has changed: Researchers now know that childhood obesity is a result of genetic, socioeconomic, and environmental factors, not a personal choice. “It’s not a situation of gluttony,” says Mary Savoye, associate director of pediatric obesity at the Yale School of Medicine. “It’s actually a complex disease.” And by acting early, researchers say, children can reduce their future risk of high blood pressure, diabetes, and fatty liver disease, which can lead to severe illness and premature death. Lifestyle therapy, says Sandra Hassink, a past president of AAP and an author of the new guidelines, is aimed at “pushing back” against unhealthy environments, with drugs and surgery serving as “adjuncts” to changes in diet and exercise.

In response to the new guidance, personal responsibility advocates argued that children just ought to eat better and exercise more. Fat acceptance advocates pointed out that AAP’s emphasis on BMI was misguided, and would only increase weight stigma. (Indeed, it’s possible to be considered “overweight” or “obese” and be in good health—but the AAP guidelines, experts emphasize, are intended for children with high BMI and health concerns like Type 2 diabetes.)

Scientists on the front lines of obesity research, meanwhile, raised another important question: If these new treatments are the best option for kids, why are they so difficult to obtain? Intensive behavioral counseling, for instance, typically takes place at an academic medical center. It often involves weekly sessions on exercise, nutrition education, support group sessions for parents, and conversations with kids about things like self-esteem and bullying. But according to AAP and the US Department of Health and Human Services, the most effective of these programs— which have been shown to help kids lose between 3.5 and 18 pounds—are rare in the United States. In fact, Dr. Thomas Robinson, a professor of pediatrics and of medicine at Stanford University who leads a behavior change program for families, estimates there are fewer than one to two dozen lifestyle programs like his across the country, and almost all aren’t covered by public or private insurance. “How could the American Academy of Pediatrics say an aggressive family-based comprehensive program is standard of care, this should be the first line of intervention, but yet, wait a minute. Oh, it’s not covered by insurance?” says Savoye, who runs a similar program at Yale called Bright Bodies. A November 2022 study by AAP found that most teen bariatric surgeries are paid for by private insurance rather than Medicaid. Only a handful of state Medicaid programs cover weight-loss medication, which can cost up to $1,600 a month. It’s even more difficult to get it covered by private insurance.

This, of course, means the children who are already disproportionately affected by obesity—those living in low-income areas and people of color—are least likely to receive cutting-edge treatments. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, obesity affects about 15 million children, including about one in four Black and Latino children, one in six white children, and one in 11 Asian American children. And that tracks with health outcomes: By the most recent estimates, Black and Latino children, for instance, are about nine and five times more likely, respectively, to suffer from Type 2 diabetes than white children. With new treatment options concentrated among the affluent, you can expect that disparity to only get bleaker.

Worse, the lack of access to treatments may limit future research—and specifically, who is able to participate. The first studies on adolescent bariatric surgery, notes Gabriel Shaibi, a professor at Arizona State University, where he studies pediatric obesity and diabetes, were primarily conducted on non-Hispanic, white females (the group most likely to seek the procedure). And because drugs and surgery are relatively new options for kids, scientists are still studying their long-term risks and benefits. It’d help if the participants in those trials looked like, well, America.

Things are changing: In the last decade, Shaibi says, researchers studying obesity have realized the need to work directly with underserved communities. He and his colleagues, for instance, partnered with the YMCA and other community groups to conduct a lifestyle-change study in Phoenix beginning in 2016 among Latino adolescents with prediabetes and BMIs at or higher than the 95th percentile. The researchers’ community-based lifestyle program, which consisted of nutrition education, physical activity, and family discussions, was just as effective in reducing kids’ diabetes risk as seeing a dietician and pediatric endocrinologist—and more effective at improving the kids’ self-reported quality of life.

That’s not the only area for improvement: Expanded insurance coverage would mean more participants from all backgrounds could join AAP-recommended programs like those run by Shaibi, Savoye, and Robinson (whose lab I worked at in college, though not on anything obesity related). And, it couldn’t hurt to simply have more of them across the country, a point that doesn’t seem lost on the CDC: In January, the CDC announced more than $400 million in funding over the next five years for diabetes prevention projects, including “evidence-based, family-centered childhood obesity interventions” focused on reducing health disparities in at-risk groups.

The new AAP guidelines, Shaibi hopes, will help keep pediatricians up to date on the latest science—but he worries their response will be, “‘Well, all right. How do you expect us to do this in the current system?’” He adds, “Our health care system has to change.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate