Consumer News: The sneaky Amazon 'quantity trap' that could be costing you money

The price of Ozempic and Wegovy will fall by up to 50%

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Novo Nordisk is slashing the list prices of its flagship weight-loss and diabetes drugs, including Wegovy and Ozempic, by up to 50% in the U.S., starting Jan. 1, 2027.

• The move is designed to improve affordability and access for patients, particularly those with high-deductible insurance plans or co-insurance tied to list prices.

• The announcement comes amid intense competition in the GLP-1 obesity and diabetes market, notably from Eli Lillys tirzepatide drugs, and has triggered reactions in financial markets.

In a dramatic shift for U.S. drug pricing, Danish pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk has announced plans to significantly reduce the list prices of its widely used weight-loss and diabetes medications, including Wegovy, Ozempic, and Rybelsus, starting Jan. 1, 2027.

The move will see list prices for these GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies fall to a uniform $675 per month, with Wegovy cut by about 50% and Ozempic by roughly 35%, according to company statements and industry reports.

The price reductions are aimed at tackling long-standing affordability concerns in the United States, where these blockbuster drugs have been criticized for their high costs with list prices previously exceeding $1,300 per month for Wegovy and around $1,000 for Ozempic and Rybelsus. By lowering the official list price, Novo Nordisk hopes to ease the burden on patients, particularly those with high-deductible health plans or co-insurance structures that tie out-of-pocket costs to list prices.

Lowering the list price of Wegovy and Ozempic is the best approach to address the unprecedented opportunity to help more than 100 million people living with obesity and over 35 million people with type 2 diabetes in the United States, said James Millar, executive vice president of Novo Nordisks U.S. operations, in a company press release.

Increasing competition

Industry analysts say the price cuts also reflect intensifying competition in the rapidly expanding market for GLP-1 agonist therapies. Rivals such as Eli Lilly & Co. have seen strong growth with their tirzepatide drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound, prompting Novo to recalibrate pricing to retain market share.

Financial markets reacted to the news, with shares of both Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly trading lower in early trading following the announcement. Investors appeared to weigh the potential impact of price reductions on revenue growth for Novo and the broader competitive landscape in the obesity-drug space.

Despite the headline price cuts, experts and patient advocates note that the changes do not affect all prices equally. For uninsured patients paying cash, the list price adjustments may not translate directly into lower transaction costs, and most patients with insurance already pay reduced amounts through negotiated plans.

Still, the official cuts could lead to broader ripple effects in insurers negotiations and coverage decisions over time.

New research shows neighborhood conditions and food access may matter for very young childrens diabetes risk

• A new nationwide analysis shows very early childhood Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is still uncommon but linked with where children live and their food environments.

• Researchers studied survey data from more than 174,000 U.S. children (including ~50,000 under age 5) to explore behavioral and environmental factors tied to T2D.

• Findings suggest broader influences neighborhood walkability, food programs, and access to nutritious foods are associated with risk indicators beyond diet and physical activity alone.

Type 2 diabetes, once thought of as an adult disease, is becoming increasingly visible in children and teens now making up a far larger share of pediatric diabetes cases than it did decades ago.

While obesity remains a key risk factor, scientists are asking: could a childs early environment including the neighborhood they grow up in and the quality of food they access also play a role?

Thats the question driving a new study published in Pediatric Research and highlighted by Florida Atlantic University researchers.

Research has shown that neighborhood environments such as the presence of sidewalks, parks or other green spaces can directly influence a childs ability to engage in physical activity, and in turn, affect their risk of developing chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, researcher Lea Sacca, Ph.D., said in a news release.

The study

The team analyzed data from the National Survey of Childrens Health covering five years (20162020), focusing on children from birth through age 5 an under-studied group when it comes to T2D. Caregivers provided information about whether a health care provider had diagnosed the child with T2D, along with responses about dietary habits, physical activity, and aspects of their living situation.

Rather than looking only at weight or what kids ate, the researchers also included broader factors like neighborhood conditions (walkability, presence of litter), access to free or reduced-cost meals, participation in food assistance programs, and even whether neighbors helped out.

Statistical comparisons including proportions and chi-square tests were used to see how these variables varied with T2D status.

What the study found: Results with a twist

First, the good news: the overall rate of T2D in kids under 5 remained very low and did not change dramatically over the study period. But certain patterns stood out.

For example, children living in areas with more walkability or nearby green space tended to have different T2D indicators compared with those in less active environments. In both 2016 and 2020, having a library nearby was linked with T2D reporting possibly capturing broader lifestyle or neighborhood patterns that influence activity.

Use of food assistance programs rose over the period studied, and while these can reduce food insecurity, they are also connected with greater consumption of processed, high-sugar foods a complexity the researchers note matters for diabetes risk.

Overall, the findings highlight that preventing early-onset T2D may need strategies beyond encouraging better diet and exercise alone .

The rise in early-onset type 2 diabetes is a growing public health concern, said Dr. Sacca. Addressing it requires a comprehensive strategy. That includes improving access to nutritious foods, creating healthier neighborhood environments, and investing in policies that promote long-term wellness from the very start of life.

New research links living near polluted sites to higher odds of advanced breast cancer diagnoses.

• Women living close to federally designated Superfund cleanup sites were more likely to be diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.

• Researchers analyzed more than 21,000 cases and looked at links after adjusting for key demographics and income.

• The findings add to evidence that environmental conditions may shape tumor progression, not just genetics or lifestyle.

The risk of breast cancer is most often discussed in terms of genes or lifestyle family history, diet, exercise, hormones.

However, scientists are digging deeper into how where people live might affect how the disease behaves.

A series of recent studies led by researchers at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and published in peer-review journals suggests that women who live near heavily polluted areas specifically Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites are more likely to be diagnosed with more aggressive forms of breast cancer.

Superfund sites are places that the EPA has identified as severely contaminated often from decades of industrial waste and that require long-term cleanup. Communities near these hazardous areas tend to be exposed to a mix of pollutants known to interfere with hormones or damage DNA. Although this kind of environmental influence has been suspected, it hasnt been widely studied in relation to breast cancer aggressiveness until now.

Members of our community raised concerns that where they lived was making people sick, researcher Erin Kobetz, Ph.D., M.P.H., said in a news release.

Overwhelmingly, the people who were speaking up about this lived in a neighborhood relatively close to a Superfund site. Theres a growing body of evidence that living in neighborhoods close to these sites is associated with poor health outcomes.

The study

The most detailed part of this research centered on data from the Florida Cancer Data System, which included more than 21,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 2015 to 2019.

Scientists categorized patients by whether they lived in a census-designated place that contained at least one Superfund site. They then compared how many of these women were diagnosed with metastatic disease meaning the cancer had already spread beyond the breast versus those whose cancer was detected before it had spread.

To make sure the analysis wasnt just reflecting differences in age, race/ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, the researchers used statistical models that controlled for factors like median income, type of health insurance, and demographic variables. This means the comparison looked beyond simple differences between neighborhoods to isolate the potential effect of environmental exposure itself.

Results: What they found

The findings were striking: women living near at least one Superfund site had roughly 30% higher odds of being diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer compared to those living in areas without such sites even after adjusting for income and other factors. This pattern held true across different models that accounted for race and insurance status, suggesting the observed link isnt just about socioeconomic differences.

While this research doesnt prove pollution causes aggressive breast cancer, it adds to a growing body of evidence that environmental factors from air quality to hazardous waste exposure are important pieces of the puzzle. These results suggest that where a person lives may influence not just if cancer develops, but also how aggressively it behaves by the time its detected.

The community had a perspective, and now we have empirical and scientific data to suggest that their concerns may be valid, Dr. Kobetz said. These studies are the first puzzle pieces that will help us figure out what we should be focusing on next.

There are a lot of individual factors that determine that answer

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Mortgage rates remain higher than pandemic-era lows, but theyve eased from recent peaks, creating selective refinancing opportunities.

• Homeowners with rates at least 0.75% to 1% above todays averages may benefit but closing costs can erase savings if they plan to move soon.

• Cash-out refinancing can provide liquidity, but it increases long-term interest costs and resets loan terms.

As mortgage rates settle into a new normal, many homeowners are wondering whether 2026 could finally be the right time to refinance. The answer depends less on national headlines and more on individual math.

After climbing sharply in recent years, mortgage rates have stabilized compared with their highs by one account falling below 6% though they remain well above the rock-bottom levels seen in 2020 and 2021. That means refinancing is no longer a universal money-saving move but for some borrowers, it can still make financial sense.

When refinancing may make sense

The traditional rule of thumb has been that refinancing is worth considering if you can lower your interest rate by at least onepercentage point. In todays environment, some lenders say a reduction of 0.75 percentage points can still be worthwhile, depending on loan size and how long you plan to stay in the home.

For example, a homeowner with a $350,000 loan who reduces their rate by 1% could save hundreds per month. Over time, that adds up but only if they stay in the house long enough to recover closing costs, which typically range from 2% to 5% of the loan amount.

Borrowers who originally purchased when rates were elevated particularly in 2023 or 2024 may be best positioned to benefit if rates dip modestly.

Monthly payment vs. long-term cost

One common mistake homeowners make is focusing solely on lowering their monthly payment.

Refinancing into a new 30-year loan resets the clock. Even at a slightly lower rate, extending repayment can increase the total interest paid over the life of the loan. Homeowners who have already paid down several years of their mortgage may want to consider a 15- or 20-year refinance instead, or choose a new term that matches their remaining payoff timeline.

The key calculation is the break-even point how many months it will take for monthly savings to exceed upfront refinancing costs.

Cash-out refinancing: Proceed carefully

For homeowners who have built significant equity, a cash-out refinance can unlock funds for home improvements, debt consolidation,or other expenses. But this strategy carries risk.

By increasing the loan balance, borrowers may trade lower-interest mortgage debt for higher long-term costs. And if home values soften, they could reduce their equity cushion.

Financial advisers generally caution against using home equity to fund discretionary spending. However, using it strategically such as consolidating high-interest credit card debt or financing value-adding renovations can make sense in certain circumstances.

Credit score and home equity matter

Lenders reserve the best refinance rates for borrowers with strong credit typically 700 or higher and at least 20% equity in their home. Those with lower credit scores may see smaller rate improvements or higher fees.

Homeowners should also consider whether theyll need a new appraisal and whether their homes value has changed significantly.

Experts consistently recommend gathering at least three quotes. Fees, lender credits, and rate-lock policies can vary widely. Even a fraction of a percentage point difference can translate into thousands of dollars over time.

Online lenders, credit unions, and traditional banks may all price loans differently, and some offer streamlined refinance programs that reduce paperwork for borrowers with government-backed loans.

Now can be a good time to refinance but only for the right borrower.

Homeowners who secured mortgages at higher recent rates, plan to remain in their homes for several years, and can meaningfully reduce their rate may benefit. Those who locked in ultra-low pandemic-era loans are unlikely to find better terms in the current environment.