Accepted answer
Four prices, four different payers, and only one of them is yours. Then the twelve-month model, which has a genuinely surprising result: on flat monthly pricing you pay roughly the same for the year whether you titrate or not, but the drug you receive differs by about 30%, which means cost per delivered milligram in month one is several times that of month twelve.
Who pays which price
- List price (WAC in the US). The manufacturer's published price to wholesalers. Almost nobody pays it. Its real function is to be the number everything else is calculated as a discount from, which is why it rises even as net prices fall.
- Net price. What the manufacturer actually retains after rebates to pharmacy benefit managers, discounts, fees and mandated government pricing. For heavily rebated categories the net can be less than half of list. You cannot access this price and you will never see it on a document; it exists between the manufacturer and the intermediaries, and rebate volume is precisely why a drug can be simultaneously described as extremely expensive and steeply discounted.
- Plan-negotiated price. What your plan's contract sets for the pharmacy, and the basis for coinsurance. Hardest to obtain in advance; the plan's price-transparency tool is the place to look.
- Your out-of-pocket. A function of plan design: deductible first, then copay or coinsurance, until an out-of-pocket maximum. A $25 copay card sits on top of that and reduces your share, not the plan's.
- Manufacturer cash channel. A direct-to-patient price for people paying without insurance. Usually well below list and well above the copay-card figure, and typically excludes anyone whose insurance covers the product.
The trap worth knowing about: copay accumulator and maximiser programmes. Under an accumulator, manufacturer assistance does not count toward your deductible or out-of-pocket maximum. You pay $25 a month while the card lasts, the deductible does not move, and when the annual card limit is exhausted mid-year you land on a full unmet deductible. People budget the $25 across twelve months and meet a four-figure bill in month eight. Ask two questions of your plan: does manufacturer assistance accrue to my deductible, and what is the annual maximum on the card.
Modelling twelve months — semaglutide
Standard obesity titration, four weeks per step: 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.7, then 2.4 mg weekly as maintenance. Over 52 weeks:
- Weeks 1–4 at 0.25 mg: 4 × 0.25 = 1.0 mg
- Weeks 5–8 at 0.5 mg: 4 × 0.5 = 2.0 mg
- Weeks 9–12 at 1.0 mg: 4 × 1.0 = 4.0 mg
- Weeks 13–16 at 1.7 mg: 4 × 1.7 = 6.8 mg
- Weeks 17–52 at 2.4 mg: 36 × 2.4 = 86.4 mg
Total = 1.0 + 2.0 + 4.0 + 6.8 + 86.4 = 100.2 mg for the year. A memorable number: a full year of semaglutide at maximum obesity dosing is almost exactly 100 mg.
Compare against 52 weeks at maintenance from day one: 52 × 2.4 = 124.8 mg. So titration reduces the year's drug by 124.8 − 100.2 = 24.6 mg, i.e. 19.7% less drug — while flat monthly pricing charges you the same. Cost per delivered milligram in month one, at $499 for 4 × 0.25 mg = 1.0 mg, is 499 / 1.0 = $499 per mg, against 499 / 9.6 = $51.98 per mg at maintenance. A ninefold difference for the identical monthly payment.
Modelling twelve months — tirzepatide
Standard escalation, four weeks per step: 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, then 15 mg weekly.
- Weeks 1–4 at 2.5 mg: 10 mg
- Weeks 5–8 at 5 mg: 20 mg
- Weeks 9–12 at 7.5 mg: 30 mg
- Weeks 13–16 at 10 mg: 40 mg
- Weeks 17–20 at 12.5 mg: 50 mg
- Weeks 21–52 at 15 mg: 32 × 15 = 480 mg
Total = 10 + 20 + 30 + 40 + 50 + 480 = 630 mg for the year. Note this is 6.3 times the semaglutide total, which is exactly why cost per milligram cannot be compared across molecules: the potency per milligram is entirely different, and the trials that established each dose used their own schedule [1] [2].
Twelve-month totals
| Scenario | Months 1–4 | Months 5–12 | 12-month total | Per delivered mg (semaglutide, 100.2 mg) |
| Brand at list, no coverage | 4 × $1,349 = $5,396 | 8 × $1,349 = $10,792 | $16,188 | $161.56 |
| Manufacturer cash channel, flat | 4 × $499 = $1,996 | 8 × $499 = $3,992 | $5,988 | $59.76 |
| Covered, $25 copay card all year | $100 | $200 | $300 | $2.99 |
| Covered, accumulator plan, card exhausted month 7 | $150 | $25 × 2 + deductible $2,000 + coinsurance | $3,000–$5,000 | $29.94–$49.90 |
| Compounded subscription, flat | 4 × $299 = $1,196 | 8 × $299 = $2,392 | $3,588 | $35.81 |
Two conclusions worth carrying away. First, the difference between rows two and three of that table is a factor of twenty, and it is decided by administrative facts about your plan rather than by anything clinical — which is why reading your own plan document is the highest-return hour available. Second, model the accumulator row explicitly. It is the one that ruins budgets, it is invisible at enrolment, and the only way to find out is to ask.
One modelling caveat: reaching and staying at the maximum dose is an assumption, not a given. A paused step or a lower maintenance dose is normal and shifts every number above.
edited 25 May 2026 by nominal_ten — added the citation requested in comments
8One hundred milligrams of semaglutide for a year is the number I have been looking for. It reframes every vial-size decision. – threadlock7 6 months ago The accumulator row is the one that got me. Card ran out in August and the deductible was untouched. – n_takahashi 8 months ago $499 per mg in month one versus $52 at maintenance, same payment. That is the argument for per-vial pricing in one line. – claudia_ferrante 3 months ago add a comment