Update: For anyone who is concerned about GLP-1 coverage being removed, there is something we can do.
I called Benefits Pro at 1-866-288-3537 ext. 3007 to formally share my concern and ask that this feedback be escalated to PwC leadership.
The message I shared was that many of us work very long hours, often with heavy workloads, travel, deadlines, and a pace that makes it difficult to consistently exercise, prepare healthy meals, or manage our health the way we would like to.
For employees who are managing obesity, metabolic health issues, insulin resistance, or related medical conditions, GLP-1 medications are not cosmetic or optional. They are part of a medically supervised treatment plan.
By removing this coverage, the firm may be cutting costs in the short term, but creating higher long-term health and business risks. Employees who lose access to effective treatment may become sicker, develop or worsen chronic conditions, miss more work, or need medical or disability leave. That is not good for our people, and it is not good for the firm.
This feels like the wrong place to cut.
If this change affects you, or if you are concerned about the impact on colleagues, I encourage you to call Benefits Pro at 1-866-288-3537 ext. 3007 and share your feedback directly.
You can say something like:
I am calling to share my concern about the decision to remove coverage for GLP-1 medications. This change may significantly impact employees who are managing obesity, metabolic health issues, insulin resistance, or other related medical conditions. I am asking that this feedback be escalated to PwC leadership and that the firm reconsider cutting this benefit.
The ask is simple: please escalate this to leadership and ask them not to cut here.
The more people who share their stories and concerns, the clearer it becomes that this is not just a medication issue. It is an employee health, retention, productivity, and long-term cost issue.
————————-
I just saw the benefits update that GLP-1 medications will no longer be covered, and I’m wondering if others are as concerned as I am.
For many employees, these medications are not cosmetic or optional. They are part of medically supervised treatment for obesity, metabolic health, insulin resistance, cardiovascular risk, and other serious health conditions. Removing coverage may create a major financial barrier for people who are already working with their doctors to manage chronic health issues.
I also think this decision may be short-sighted from a business perspective. Many of us work long hours in mostly sedentary roles. If employees lose access to effective treatment, the likely result is not lower cost over time. It may mean worsening health, higher long-term claims, more complications, more missed work, and greater overall cost to both employees and the company.
Would others be interested in joining together to send a respectful letter to Paul asking the company to reconsider this decision, or at minimum to explore a more balanced approach? For example, continued coverage with clinical criteria, prior authorization, step therapy, or coverage for employees with documented medical need.
I think this is worth raising thoughtfully and collectively. Employee health should be treated as a long-term investment, not just a short-term benefits expense.