Consumer News: Prices for Ozempic and Wegovy continue to fall

Subscription costs are not going up for now

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• New multi-year carriage agreement restores full access to Disney-owned channels on YouTube TV

• Subscribers will see no immediate price increase, according to both companies

• The deal includes expanded on-demand rights and improved streaming reliability commitments

YouTube TV and Disney have reached a new multi-year carriage agreement that will keep Disney-owned networks including ABC, ESPN, FX, National Geographic, and Disney Channel available to the live TV streaming services subscribers. The deal ends weeks of uncertainty for customers who had been warned that contract negotiations were approaching a deadline during the height of college and professional sports seasons.

In a joint announcement, the companies said the agreement maintains the full suite of Disney linear channels, along with a package of expanded on-demand rights that will give YouTube TV subscribers access to more recently aired episodes and select library programming. The companies also highlighted new technical commitments designed to reduce streaming glitches during high-traffic events, such as live sports.

No price hike attached for now

Both companies said the new deal would not result in an immediate price increase. YouTube TV, which already sits at the higher end of the live-streaming market, has raised its monthly rate several times in recent years as content licensing costs have climbed. Analysts say subscribers will likely be watching closely to see whether future price adjustments emerge.

For now, YouTube TV emphasized that the agreement supports its goal of keeping the service simple, predictable, and competitive as the broader streaming landscape remains in flux.

What it means for subscribers

For consumers, the agreement means uninterrupted access to popular sports programming especially ESPNs NFL, NBA, and college sports coverage as well as Disney-owned entertainment and news channels. The companies also noted that the deal includes improvements to program guides, more consistent video quality across devices, and expanded rights for DVR storage on some Disney networks.

If past carriage disputes between pay-TV providers and major media companies are any indication, subscribers have become increasingly vocal about the impact of contract renegotiations on both pricing and channel availability. This agreement appears to avert a repeat of those frustrations.

The deal arrives at a time when live TV streaming services are grappling with rising programming costs, fragmenting media rights, and consumers who are increasingly selective about the number of subscriptions theyre willing to maintain.

Disney continues to push forward with its direct-to-consumer strategy, while YouTube TV remains one of the few streaming bundles still offering a broad lineup of traditional cable channels.

While neither company shared the financial details of the agreement, both framed it as a long-term win for consumers at least for the moment.

New ranking shows strong system influence on hospital performance

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Roughly one in four U.S. hospital inpatients are harmed by preventable errors each year.

• A hospitals are overwhelmingly part of large health systems, Leapfrogs analysis finds.

• Utah leads the nation in hospital safetyfor the fifth grading cycle in a row

A lot of factors influence a hospitals safety record, but being part of a larger health system appears to increase patient safety.

The Leapfrog Group has released its fall 2025 Hospital Safety Grade, a nationwide assessment that assigns every general hospital in the U.S. a letter grade A, B, C, D, or F based on how well they protect patients from medical errors, injuries, accidents, and infections.

These are harms that remain both common and largely preventable, affecting an estimated one in four hospital inpatients and contributing to as many as 250,000 deaths a year.

As Leapfrog marks its 25th anniversary, the organization is taking a deeper look at how health system consolidation may be influencing hospital performance and patient safety outcomes. Patients can see how hospitals in their area rank here.

Health systems dominate the top performers

In this years analysis, 90% of all graded hospitals were part of a larger health system. That figure climbed even higher among top performers:

• 94% of hospitals earning an A were system-affiliated.

• 95% of Straight A hospitals those that have maintained an A for more than two years belonged to health systems.

• All 11 hospitals that have received an A in every grading cycle since 2012 were also system-affiliated.

Leapfrog defines a health system as a network of health care facilities managed or owned by a single parent organization. The group also highlighted the 10 systems with the highest numbers of A and Straight A hospitals. While the Defense Health Agency appeared among system leaders, it was not included in Straight A recognition because its hospitals have not been eligible for enough grading rounds; they will qualify beginning in 2026.

Leah Binder, president and CEO of The Leapfrog Group, said the milestone year prompted a closer look at the role of system leadership.

We want to understand if system leadership accelerates patient safety or not, Binder said. Transparency has always been our hallmark, and understanding how consolidation affects patient outcomes is a natural next step.

State rankings: Utah holds the lead again

Each grading cycle, Leapfrog also evaluates states based on the proportion of hospitals receiving an A. In the fall 2025 rankings:

• Utah topped the list for the fifth consecutive cycle.

• Virginia, New Jersey, Connecticut, and North Carolina rounded out the top five.

• Four states Iowa, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had no A-rated hospitals this time.

These state-level findings highlight ongoing geographic disparities in hospital performance and patient safety, reinforcing the need for continued transparency and accountability in healthcare systems nationwide.

Observational data suggests patients on GLP-1 therapy had much lower five-year mortality

• Patients with colon cancer using GLP-1 receptor agonists (the class of drugs behind treatments like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro) had substantially lower five-year death rates than those not using them (15.5% vs. 37.1%).

• The research examined more than 6,800 colon-cancer patients from across the University of California Health system and adjusted for age, BMI, disease severity, and other health factors.

• While the results are real-world and observational (which means they cant prove cause-and-effect), researchers believe this finding is important enough to trigger formal clinical trials.

According to a recent report from the University of California San Diego, people with colon cancer who were using GLP-1 meds had much lower five-year mortality rates than those who did not.

While this doesnt yet mean these drugs are a proven cancer-treatment, it does shine a light on how medications developed for one purpose (blood-sugar control, weight loss) might have ripple effects into other health areas including cancer.

The study

The research team turned to real-world clinical data housed in the University of California Health Data Warehouse.

They included over 6,800 patients diagnosed with colon cancer who had been treated across the systems academic medical centers. The core comparison: those who were taking GLP-1 receptor agonists vs. those who were not.

Crucially, the analysis adjusted for key factors that could influence survival: age, body mass index (BMI), severity of disease, and other health conditions.

That means the observed survival differences likely arent just because GLP-1 patients were healthier in other obvious ways they tried to control for those variables. Still, being observational, the study can show association but cannot prove that GLP-1 use caused the improved survival.

The results

Heres the headline: among colon cancer patients in this dataset, those on GLP-1 medications had a five-year death rate of about 15.5%, compared with 37.1% for those not on GLP-1s. Thats less than half the mortality rate in the non-GLP-1 group.

The benefit appeared especially striking in patients whose BMI exceeded 35, suggesting that the drugs effects on weight, metabolism, and inflammation might play a role.

The researchers note several possible mechanisms: GLP-1 agents may reduce systemic inflammation, improve insulin sensitivity, promote weight loss, and even in lab studies suppress tumor cell growth or alter the tumor microenvironment.

Importantly, the authors emphasize that despite the promising numbers, more research and randomized trials are needed before declaring GLP-1 drugs as a definitive cancer-survival therapy.

What this means for you

If you or a loved one has colon cancer (especially in the context of elevated BMI or metabolic issues), this study offers a note of cautious optimism. However, its not time yet to assume GLP-1 meds will replace standard cancer care. Talk to your oncologist or endocrinologist about whether any of this might apply in your case.

New Danish research links extra device hours with early heart-health markers in kids and teens

• More recreational screen time in children and teens was tied to higher cardiometabolic risk think higher blood pressure, less-favorable cholesterol, and insulin resistance.

• The association was stronger among youth who got less sleep suggesting that screen use may affect heart health in part by stealing sleep.

• Each extra hour of screen time per day wasnt dramatic on its own, but when you add multiple hours, it adds up to a measurable shift in risk.

In a world where kids and teens are increasingly spending hours on phones, tablets, gaming consoles and TVs, its worth asking: what all that screen time especially the unstructured, recreational kind might be doing to their bodies?

According to a new study from Denmark published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, more screen time among younger people may be tied to signs of elevated risk for heart and metabolic trouble later on.

While the findings dont prove cause and effect, they shine a light on how modern screen habits could relate to the groundwork for future heart health.

Limiting discretionary screen time in childhood and adolescence may protect long-term heart and metabolic health, researcher David Horner, M.D., PhD., said in a news release.

Our study provides evidence that this connection starts early and highlights the importance of having balanced daily routines.

The study

Researchers analyzed data from more than 1,000 participants drawn from two long-running Danish cohort studies known as COPSAC Copenhagen Prospective Studies on Asthma in Childhood. The first group was around age 10 (from a 2010 birth-cohort) and the second about age 18 (from a 2000 birth-cohort).

Screen time was self- or parent-reported, covering hours spent watching TV/movies, gaming, or using phones, tablets, or computers for leisure.

To assess risk, the team created a composite cardiometabolic score based on waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, good HDL cholesterol, triglycerides and blood glucose each standardized for age and sex.

They also looked at sleep duration (using data from sensors worn for 14 days), timing of sleep, and used advanced metabolomics to detect a possible biological fingerprint of screen time.

The results

Overall, the study found a clear pattern: the more time kids and teens spent on screens for fun, the more likely they were to show early signs linked to future heart and metabolic problems.

For both age groups 10-year-olds and 18-year-olds extra daily screen time was connected with things like:

• Higher blood pressure

• Less-healthy cholesterol levels

• More insulin resistance, which can be an early sign of issues with blood sugar

• A bigger waist measurement, which can be one marker of health risk
  

None of these changes were huge on their own, but they added up. For example, every extra hour a day of recreational screen time was tied to a small but noticeable shift toward higher overall health risk. In teens, that shift was a little stronger than in younger kids.

The researchers also found that sleep played a big role. Kids and teens who slept less or went to bed later had an even stronger link between screen time and these health markers. In younger kids, a portion of the screen-time effect could be explained by the fact that screens were cutting into their sleep.

Finally, among the 18-year-olds, more screen time was also tied to a higher predicted risk of developing heart disease later in life. Again, it wasnt dramatic, but it was enough for researchers to pay attention.

What this means for you

If youre parenting or working with young people, the message isnt: ban screens forever.

Rather, its a reminder that heavy recreational screen use may subtly shift the balance of heart-and-metabolic health risk especially when paired with less sleep. Simple, practical steps like encouraging earlier bedtimes, limiting usage in the hour before bed, and introducing non-screen leisure or movement might help.

Because this was an observational study (not a randomized trial), it doesnt prove screen time causes these changes but it does justify conversations about screen habits and sleep as part of healthy routines. Even if each extra hour only nudges risk a little, multiple hours add up. Limiting discretionary screen time and protecting sleep could be one of many small moves that support longer-term heart health in younger generations.