There is no dearth of medication, but the cost of these is prohibitive and patients in poor countries cannot afford treatment.
Published Feb 05, 2025 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated Feb 05, 2025 | 9:43 AM
Representative pic
Synopsis: Professors Giridhara R Babu and Abdella Mohammed Habib of Qatar University, in their research paper, assert that the availability of therapies alone cannot halt the march of obesity and diabetes; food environments, preventive healthcare and unequal access to medication must all be addressed by governments, which could intervene to regulate prices, incentivise production and seek transfer of technology when needed.
Once considered a niche area of research, GLP-1 receptor agonists (Glucagon-like peptide-1; usually injectable medication used to treat diabetes and obesity) and dual GIP/GLP-1 drugs are now being hailed as miracle drugs for diabetes and obesity. They are touted as capable of improving heart health, and could improve even the condition of those suffering from Parkinson’s disease.
Yet, questions are raised — are these drugs truly the game-changer, or just expensive fixes? Can democratic societies truly celebrate medical breakthroughs that ignore the deepening crisis of healthcare inequality?
In their analysis published in PLOS, public health experts Giridhara R Babu, epidemiologist and professor of population medicine at Qatar University’s College of Medicine and Abdella Mohammed Habib, Assistant Professor, Department of Basic Medicine Sciences, College of Medicine, Qatar University, argue that while these drugs are remarkable, they cannot be a standalone solution.
“Even if access were achieved, these therapies alone cannot resolve the deeper structural drivers of obesity and T2DM (Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus), such as socioeconomic inequities, food environments, and limited preventive healthcare,” they write.
The real problem is not just the high cost of the drugs, but the systemic issues that perpetuate these diseases.
While high-income countries battle insurance-related barriers, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face an even graver crisis. The authors argue that in regions across the Global South, rising urbanisation and lifestyle changes have fueled the diabetes epidemic, yet healthcare systems remain ill equipped to handle it.
Indigenous populations, historically sidelined by healthcare systems, are among the worst affected.
As Babu and Habib note, “Addressing these disparities requires more than expanding access to advanced pharmacotherapies — it demands a fundamental shift in how healthcare systems, economic policies, and social structures interact to shape chronic disease prevalence.”
For many, these drugs – costing nearly $1,000 per month – are simply out of reach.
Even in wealthier nations, patients without robust insurance coverage struggle to afford them, leading to reallocation of resources from essential health services to high-cost innovations.
“Without tackling the root causes that perpetuate these health inequities, interventions may only offer partial relief while leaving the deeper systemic issues unaddressed,” the authors caution.
A glaring issue, according to Babu and Habib, is the global focus on treatment rather than prevention.
Investing in GLP-1 agonists without addressing the economic and social conditions that drive obesity and diabetes is like bailing water out of a sinking ship without fixing the leak.
Governments must prioritise policies that promote healthy food environments, ensure access to preventive healthcare, and reduce socioeconomic disparities.
“Ensuring equitable access involves more than drug pricing,” the authors argue.
“Healthcare systems must be sufficiently resourced to provide the multidisciplinary support these therapies require.”
This includes proper nutrition guidance, lifestyle interventions, and educational programmes, which are crucial for long-term success.
The pharmaceutical industry, driven by profit rather than public health, remains a major roadblock.
Prof Babu and Prof Habib highlight the lack of regulatory urgency in pushing for generic alternatives.
“A concerted effort to expand low-cost production is not prioritised by regulatory agencies despite the overwhelming health benefits of these drugs,” they write, calling this a systemic failure. Governments could negotiate pricing, provide tax incentives for affordable production, or push for technology transfer agreements, yet these measures remain underutilised due to the dominance of profit-driven pharmaceutical models.”
The takeaway from Babu and Habib’s analysis is clear: Expanding access to these drugs without fixing the underlying problems will never be enough. A true solution requires addressing the social and economic structures that make people sick in the first place.
More than a moral imperative, this is a public health necessity. Without systemic change, GLP-1-based therapies will remain a luxury item for the wealthy while millions continue to suffer.
As Prof Babu and Prof Habib put it, “A balanced strategy is needed — one that prioritises sustainability, preventive care, and dismantles structural barriers that perpetuate health inequities.”
The world cannot afford to keep treating symptoms while ignoring the cause.
(Edited by Rosamma Thomas)
