How a rush for GLP‑1s could reshape the drug market — 1 in 7 Americans say they’ll try them by 2026

Survey snapshot: a significant share of Americans say they plan to try GLP‑1s in 2026

Sunlight.com’s recent survey found that roughly one in seven Americans intend to use GLP‑1 medications by 2026. The headline is simple and hard to ignore: a nontrivial slice of the public says they plan to take a class of drugs that until recently was mostly used for diabetes. The timing — two years out — matters because many of the companies making these medicines are already scaling production and setting prices based on rising demand.

For investors, that stated intent is a useful early signal. For patients and health plans, it raises immediate questions about access, cost and how fast clinics and pharmacies can keep up. The survey doesn’t guarantee everyone who says they plan to use a GLP‑1 will actually do so, but it does capture shifting attitudes that can become a wave of real prescriptions if payers and regulators don’t push back.

Who’s interested and why: what the survey shows about motivations and obstacles

Sunlight.com’s poll asked adults about their likely use of GLP‑1 drugs within the next couple of years. The people saying they intend to use them were a mix: some already have diabetes, others are pursuing weight loss, and a portion cited general metabolic health as a reason. Younger adults and people who have been following media coverage of weight‑loss results were disproportionately likely to say they would try these medicines.

But stated intent is not the same as actual uptake. The survey highlights clear barriers. Cost and insurance coverage topped the list — many respondents worried they would not be able to afford treatment. Access is another hurdle: some areas lack specialty clinics, and busy primary‑care offices may not be set up to start long courses of injectable medicines. Side effects and fear of long‑term risks also dissuaded a chunk of people.

In short, the poll captures strong interest but also realistic headwinds. A meaningful share of respondents sound motivated, but financial, logistical and medical barriers will filter actual demand.

From interest to demand: how consumer intent could translate into bigger GLP‑1 sales

Even if only a fraction of the one‑in‑seven group becomes regular users, the arithmetic points to material market growth. These drugs are taken repeatedly, often monthly, and weight‑loss courses can last many months or years. That difference between a one‑time trial and sustained use is what turns consumer interest into recurring revenue for manufacturers.

For the broader health market, more users would mean higher prescription volumes, increased clinic visits, and bigger negotiations between drugmakers and insurers over price and coverage terms. Pharmacies and specialty distributors would need to expand logistics. Retail clinics and telehealth companies could see a lift in demand if they position themselves as easy entry points for treatment.

Winners and risks at the company level: what this means for major makers

Some drugmakers are already positioned to benefit if demand grows. Novo Nordisk (NVO) has led the market with semaglutide products used for weight and diabetes care, and it has built a strong brand and distribution footprint. Eli Lilly (LLY) has emerged as a close rival with tirzepatide‑based treatments and aggressive capacity expansion. Both companies stand to gain from higher prescription volumes and longer treatment durations.

That said, the upside is not uniform. Higher demand can bring pricing pressure from insurers and government payers. Companies that charge premium prices may see their gross margins tested if payers demand discounts or step‑therapy rules that force patients to try cheaper drugs first. Smaller competitors and newcomers could chip away at market share with lower‑cost entries or innovative delivery methods, and contract manufacturers supplying active ingredients may struggle to scale quickly, creating short‑term supply problems.

Investors should watch where individual companies sit on three fronts: branded pricing power, manufacturing scale, and the strength of relationships with large pharmacy benefit managers and health systems. Firms that can show they can supply large volumes reliably while defending price will be the best placed to monetize a wave of new users.

Regulatory, payer and supply overhangs that could shape uptake

Non‑demand issues will be decisive. Payers control who gets covered and how quickly. Many insurers have been cautious about covering GLP‑1s broadly for weight management; they often limit coverage to people above certain body‑mass thresholds or those with obesity‑related conditions. If payers tighten rules, public intent may not become paid prescriptions at scale.

Regulators and policymakers are also watching marketing and prescribing patterns. Off‑label use, shortages at pharmacies, or aggressive direct‑to‑consumer marketing could invite scrutiny that slows roll‑out or forces new labeling and access rules. Finally, supply chains for active ingredients and sterile injectable manufacturing are complex; any hiccup can create temporary shortages and frustrate adoption even when demand is high.

What investors should watch next: key data points and triggers

Monitor prescription and dispensing data, payer formulary moves, quarterly revenue guidance from major drugmakers, and updates on manufacturing capacity. Specific near‑term catalysts include earnings calls that revise volume or price assumptions, large formulary wins or losses, new approvals that expand indications, and emerging clinical safety signals. Changes in any of these areas would shift the investment picture fast.

Sources

• prnewswire.com