Beyond Better Blood Sugar: Study Explores Whether GLP-1 Drugs Improve Other Aspects of Life

GLP-1 medications such as Ozempic have transformed the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, helping millions of patients better control their blood sugar while reducing cardiovascular risk and, for many, promoting substantial weight loss.

But do those health improvements also translate into better mental health, stronger relationships, or greater success at work?

A new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper from University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy economist Robert Kaestner and coauthor Cuiping Schiman suggests the answer is more nuanced than popular narratives might imply. Studying adults with diabetes, the researchers found little evidence that taking GLP-1 medications led to measurable changes in mental health, self-rated health, employment, or marital status.

“We know these drugs improve health outcomes, and there’s been a great deal of research documenting those benefits,” Kaestner said. “What hadn’t really been examined was whether those improvements extended into other parts of people’s lives—things like employment, relationships, marriage, and mental health.”

The question has growing policy significance as insurers and government programs weigh the costs and benefits of expanding access to GLP-1 medications. While the drugs’ medical value is well established, less is known about whether they generate broader social and economic benefits that could strengthen the case for coverage.

To explore that question, Kaestner and Schiman analyzed more than a decade of data from the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, focusing on adults with diabetes between 2012 and 2023. Rather than simply comparing people who happened to take GLP-1 medications with those who did not, the researchers followed the same individuals over time, examining whether their circumstances changed after they began taking the drugs.

They looked for changes in several measures of wellbeing, including symptoms of depression and psychological distress, self-rated health, employment, and marital status. Initial comparisons suggested GLP-1 users differed from non-users on some measures, including employment and marriage. But those differences largely disappeared once the researchers tracked the same people over time, suggesting the apparent gaps reflected differences between the people taking the medications rather than changes caused by the drugs themselves.

The researchers reached similar conclusions whether they examined people after about one year of GLP-1 use or over a longer, two-year period. Across both analyses, they found little evidence that the medications produced meaningful changes in the broader outcomes they studied.

That does not mean the drugs have no effects beyond physical health, Kaestner cautioned. Rather, it suggests those effects may be more subtle—or harder to measure—than many people assume.

“We measured outcomes like whether someone became employed or unemployed, whether they got married or divorced, and standard indicators of mental health,” he said. “Those are important measures, but they don’t necessarily capture changes in self-esteem, relationship quality, or other day-to-day experiences.”

The findings also should not be interpreted as diminishing the medications’ medical value. Instead, Kaestner said, they suggest that the most clearly measurable benefits for adults with diabetes remain the ones already established through clinical research: better glycemic control, weight loss, and improvements in physical health.

As GLP-1 medications continue to expand beyond diabetes treatment and become increasingly common for weight management, Kaestner believes more research will be needed to understand whether their broader social effects become more apparent in other populations or over longer periods of time.

“This is still a very new area of research,” he said. “As use continues to grow, understanding these broader consequences will become increasingly important for patients, clinicians, and policymakers alike.”