GLP-1 use (and more) by fed employees under FEHB could be affected by OPM "call letter"

Sharing this because I want to hear people who know more than me scream about it (which I kind of expect you will).

from OPM to FEHB carriers: Cut costs, MAHA style - Government Executive
The Office of Personnel Management instructed insurers who participate in federal and postal workers’ employer-sponsored health benefits program last week to promote a series of “well care” initiatives as an effort to reduce costs as the companies prepare their offerings for this fall’s annual open season.

The notice took the form of OPM’s annual “call letter” to companies that participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits programs.

[among other things] the letter calls for insurers to require other interventions before patients may pursue GLP-1 drugs for obesity. Feds seeking a GLP-1 prescription would first have to participate in an obesity management program including intensive behavioral therapy.

[In the call letter, see starting on p.6 “Prevention and Treatment of Obesity”. They cite DRAFT FDA Guidance for industry on developing these drugs, marked Not for Implementation.

FDA indications for anti-obesity medications reinforce that nutrition, behavioral interventions and physical activity regimens should precede drug treatment of obesity and that anti-obesity medications are not recommended for cosmetic or convenience weight loss.15 This is consistent with guidance from nationally recognized clinical bodies including the American Diabetes Association, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and the USPSTF.
[citation links at bottom of each page]
FDA: Obesity and Overweight: Developing Drugs and Biological Products for Weight Reduction: Guidance for Industry (Draft guidance released January 2025) Carriers must cover the full extent of the USPSTF recommendations addressing healthy weight in adults,16 children and adolescents,17 and pregnant women.18 The primary USPSTF recommendation is intensive behavioral therapy (IBT), a combination of structured lifestyle interventions pertaining to nutrition, physical activity, and behavior change outside the realm of mental or behavioral health treatment for eating disorders.

but they also want….[bold could be helped with GLP-1s]
emphasis should be placed on ensuring access to treatments for conditions that are recognized to adversely impact fertility, such as obesity, prediabetes, chronic reproductive health conditions to include male factor infertility and hypertension,

Anyway.
Citations are at the bottom of each page of the call letter. Notably absent is https://www.jacc.org/doi/pdf/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.05.024 2025 Concise Clinical Guidance: An ACC Expert Consensus Statement on Medical Weight Management for Optimization of Cardiovascular Health

Well, this is disappointing. I find it interesting that the primary citation justifying “behavioral therapy before GLP-1s” is a draft FDA guidance document stamped “Not for Implementation.” That is a request for public comment and not a clinical document. Building coverage restrictions around it is a curious choice.

As you know, the stepwise lifestyle-first model for obesity pharmacotherapy reflects an older treatment paradigm. Current ADA and AACE guidance has moved toward treating obesity as a chronic disease warranting earlier pharmacological intervention. The behavioral-therapy-first model has poor real-world adherence data, and delay has measurable cardiovascular and metabolic consequences for the patients waiting.

The 2025 ACC Expert Consensus Statement is nowhere in the citation list. It was published this year and is directly on point. You do not accidentally omit a major ACC consensus document when you are actively assembling citations about obesity pharmacotherapy.

The letter calls for coverage of obesity-related fertility impairment while simultaneously placing prior authorization barriers to the most effective obesity treatment available. Of course, there’s no explanation for these contradictory positions.

In medical school, I remember learning that in the 2000’s, Medicaid programs across multiple states required patients to fail on older first-generation antipsychotics before accessing newer agents, citing cost and “insufficient evidence” while ignoring data that favored the newer drugs. Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn’s went through the same thing: cite a real but outdated guideline, omit the current consensus, and call it evidence-based. Of course, this ignores that patients doing the failing in “fail-first” protocols are actual people.

Federal employees deserve a coverage policy built on evidence…and empathy.