Is this going to open a floodgate - weight loss jabs for unemployed

To be fair benefits can be withdrawn if a claimant refuses treatment that would help them unless there's a very good reason for refusal.

That is not what is happening, so need to get heyt up. The actual facts are:

Health Innovation Manchester has today (14 October 2024) announced a groundbreaking strategic partnership with Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) to initiate a five-year real-world evidence study (SURMOUNT-REAL UK), subject to relevant approvals.

The announcement has been made as part of a collaboration agreed between Lilly and UK Government today, unveiled at the Government’s International Investment Summit.

The study will evaluate the real-world effectiveness of tirzepatide in weight loss, diabetes prevention, and prevention of obesity-related complications for adults with obesity. The evidence generated will seek to increase the global evidence base on the long-term impacts of weight loss medicines and potentially inform the UK’s care pathway approach to the treatment of obesity.

Significantly, the five-year study will also aim to collect data on healthcare resource utilisation, health-related quality of life and changes in participants’ employment status and sick days from work.

healthinnovationmanchester.com/news/greater-manchester-plans-to-partner-with-industry-on-a-new-study-to-deepen-understanding-of-a-weight-loss-medication/

Well to take your points one by one, the same way you can explain how you can be so sure about the genuineness of my or anyone elses amusement

Its a funny thing when correcting or challenging people is skewed as a disproportionate response, there is lots of misinformation on this thread, and it needs putting right, lots of ignorance and judgement tied up with faux concern, it always is. No one has touched a nerve of mine, I dont have a natural off switch, its not a failure of mine, its just how Im made, its a factual statement. I do have a surgical off switch because Ive had WLS, so I have no skin in the game anymore (oh wait I do have saggy skin in the game), Im not overweight or unhealthy, I dont need to diet etc. Im helped by the mechanism the surgery provided for me

What I call out on each and every one of these threads is the hypocrisy and stereotypes and misinformation.

If that is disproportionate then so be it.

Oh, I see now why you started the thread. It’s all about virtue-signalling.

I still fail to see how it's anyone's business? It's a long term study.

Streeting himself wrote the opinion piece in the Telegraph that the paper commented on. I strongly suspect he wanted this message put out in the way it has been.

The BBC, that well known nest of frothing right wingers, has reported under the headline Unemployed could get weight loss jabs to return to work, that (first para) “Proposals to give weight loss jabs to unemployed people living with obesity could be "very important" for our economy and health, the prime minister has told the BBC.” So Starmer’s pitching in too.

I agree that the image of millions of doses of Ozempic being handed out to overweight unemployed people is ridiculous. But I can’t help feeling that government is aiming at hyping this story: it suggests they have some plans. 🙄

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjd54zd0ezjo.amp

I know - I saw.

That's not fair. Inevitably if anyone starts a thread about weight loss and then says they're not overweight, they get accused of virtue-signalling/posting in bad faith. That's what's happened here - the OP has had plenty of goady comments directed at her but the moment she claps back even mildly she's accused of 'virtue-signalling.'

@soupfiend that's great the WLS worked for you and it can do for many. Though you will also be well aware it's not as simple as having the surgery, there is a lot of dedication required after to reach your goal. It is not a quick fix and that's kinda my whole point. The injections are also not a quick fix, they are viewed as such by a lot of people though. It is just not that simple when it comes to weight loss, if it were then nobody would stay overweight.
I note you seem to be missing that point though it's unclear why. I never said anything to undermine or belittle anyone overweight, yet you have repeatedly told me my concern is "faux" and stated I was wrong and fat bashing (I note that's not a point you chose to address further). Perhaps a little less rushing to react, and a little more pausing to respond may be worth trying.

It's not that though is it.

We are living in a society where food is abundant and the vast majority of people can afford to buy as much as they want of (more or less) whatever they want. All species on earth have evolved to survive in times of scarcity, needing to work hard to actively find enough food to sustain themselves. No species knows how to cope with unlimited food with no requirement to be active in order to obtain it.

Meanwhile, food companies are (understandably) working to create more and more tempting and delicious food at lower and lower prices, which means more salt, sugar and fat, because humans really like those things, and then they bombard us with marketing.

You don't need to be miserable, stressed or exhausted to be tempted to make a lot of unhealthy choices.

I think it is totally implausible that the Labour Party will not be very interested in the role of public health in managing the benefits bill. It was in their manifesto. I agree with Rummly that they wanted this perception as in the Telegraph; and that they will be consciously explored what health intervention can do. The fact is that a lot of our prospective workforce are sick. That should be addressed.

I am a leftie: but I have zero patience with the idea that you can effectively disable yourself by food and maintain yourself in that manner by claiming benefits to do it. If you refuse treatment, and that is your choice legally then it a whole different matter, because benefits are paid on a need basis. What happens next is pretty obvious imo, ie you get “help” but not “money” to return to work. Should you not accept it, lesser benefits are given.

There’s lots of recent evidence to suggest benefits beyond obesity for weight loss medications … they reduce the risks of heart disease and cancer, for example.

They also slow the aging process of our bodies and skin, so we could end up with this cohort being healthier than the non obese population… as long as they are given a long term maintenance dose (which will be inevitable).

I think this will be very difficult for some people to accept. It must feel very unfair to have the tables turned overnight in this way, and the fact that they’ll also be paying for it as taxpayers must be even more galling.

Personally I’ve only been obese since having kids and I’ve reversed that now through Mounjaro at my own expense. My appetite has permanently decreased now and I’m not struggling to maintain. I’ve barely taken any as I keep forgetting about it. I lost nearly 4 stone.

I’m delighted that the less wealthy will now be getting access to it for free, everyone deserves a chance to change.

I’m very happy for my taxes to go on helping people make their lives better and reducing health inequalities in our society. I don’t think you can put a price on that.

But I do understand why there are so many pissed off people today at the announcement. But it makes sense to invest in this.

I think it's one of those things that sounds good, but is a simplistic approach to a complex issue. What happens if they don't return to work? Are they going to be refused the jabs? The jabs have been around for a long time for Diabetes so I'm guessing the long term impact is known, but are they going to be left on these for life? Or will they come off when they hit their target weight? At which point, they could pile the weight on if the underlying issues haven't been addressed.

A quick google says:
Can I get treated with Wegovy on the NHS? You can be treated with Wegovy in a specialist weight management service if you have: a weight-related health condition, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol or cardiovascular disease. obesity, classed as a BMI of 35 or more.

So it seems that if you are obese you can already get a jab if you want to.

I do love your patronising tone. Im not in a parliamentary debate with you, I dont need to 'answer every point' at your demand, do bear in mind Im here with my crack pipes and fags anyway

I particularly like the lecture about WLS and medication that you havent lived through and havent experienced, taking me on quite the busmans holiday.

You dont need to mention the word fat, and in my expereince, and it is only my experience of course, fat people get very aggy about other fat people losing weight, being successful, its uncomfortable, they want to see failure if they perceive their own weight loss journeys as having been failures. You may not fit into that category, perhaps, but as someone with your BMI (similar to mine when I started out), you will be aware that you are the proverbial ticking time bomb as my surgeon so bluntly said to me. So you you could research perhaps more thoroughly different methods of weight loss without the cliched trope of 'quick fix'. Because a 'slow fix', means decades and decades of continued obesity. That I have also lived

And a quick fix doesnt apply to me, classic slow loser anyway.

Im not sure that is happening though for people, there are reams and reams of threads of people who meet that criteria but who cant get it. Not sure of the reasons exactly

For me, the OP sums up everything wrong with this country.

A drug appears that can help people be healthier, more productive and happier; whilst also saving the taxpayer money

But all the OP and their ilk care about is they'll have to come up with a new way to judge others. It really is pathetic.

By that logic though, all but the very poorest would be overweight. Whatever the root cause, from access to high-calorie food or poor mental health, shouldn’t we address it as a priority before just letting the pharmaceutical companies get even richer?

@soupfiend wow just when you think someone can't slip any lower. Now who's fat-bashing?
You have now taken what I said and run with it. And you've also chosen to take quite the stab at me (and really all overweight people) and your perception of me as a ticking time bomb. I didn't say I'm still that BMI. I'm not. And I didn't use any injections or WLS to do it but that is absolutely not the point. I have no judgment for anyone who uses either of those and I know lots of friends and family who have. If it works for you then that's what matters.

To keep it simple-

Weight loss injections can and do work some of the time.
Weight gain is not usually as simple as just eating as there's often deep rooted mental health reasons at play.
Weight loss injections cannot address mental health factors therefore both need to be looked at for this specific trial to have a successful long term effect.

It does seem like a vicious circle of money making - processed food causes illnesses, but instead of addressing that big pharma create drugs to treat one of the symptoms (obesity), leaving the other issues like cancer to continue. We have to get people eating real food again or we aren't going to fix this problem (but big companies will continue to profit from ill health).

Is the idea is that the jabs will be more widely available if it proves people go back to work? Because I'm not convinced of the morality of that - if there is a criteria for use (obesity) then they should be available for that on health grounds, not as a carrot to get back in the job market.

Some people have better self-control, some people really enjoy exercise, some people have active jobs, some people hyper-focus on healthy eating.

Let's be honest, most of us probably should move more and eat less.

My BMI is currently hovering at around 23-24, technically not overweight but definitely quite a bit chubbier than I need to be considering I have a very small frame and next to no muscle. I'm very inactive. I could absolutely do more exercise, but I'm a bit lazy. I eat more than I need to and make some unhealthy choices because I really like food. I'm not depressed. I'm not "too poor" to buy healthy food.

Yes but clearly it will come into align for benefits payment. As part of showing you are fit and ready for work, this jab may become a requirement in effect. It’s not the treatment, it’s the effect of refusing treatment and therefore access to benefit which they are looking to change.

Trialling such a system will give them a much better legal justification to do this. Some smart thinking is happening.

How does this fit in with autonomy and patient confidentiality? Will acceptance of the jabs be a condition of receiving UC? Sanctions if someone refuses ? Will GPS have to give the information to the DWP whether the patient/claimant agrees or not?

Imagine if the same was being suggested with contraceptive jabs to get people back to work if they’ve had ‘too many ‘ dc ?

I think you can draw a distinction between patient autonomy in terms of treatment because we all have a choice.

However, access to public benefits is conditioned by the government in many ways. If you refused medical treatment that would otherwise make you fit for work, or means you would have a lesser disability, I think you could do that lawfully.

I think a lot of people are answering this thread on the flawed premise of the OP, which is about joining it with being unemployed. Clearly this was a mistake, or 'mispeak' by either government or the media, or both.