STAT has a question for the Trump administration: did it just hand Novo Nordisk a financial win? The answer is not in the newsletter, but the question is hanging in the air.
The story comes from STAT’s twice-weekly newsletter, “D.C. Diagnosis,” which covers health and medicine politics and policy. The newsletter, dated Tuesday, reports that Dr. Oz praised GLP-1 drugs from Eli Lilly’s lab, where he claimed MFN agreements had drastically cut the price of obesity drugs.
Here is the twist: Lilly’s GLP-1s are exempt from those MFN agreements.
The Exemption
Lilly’s GLP-1s are exempt from the MFN agreements. That means the administration cut a deal with one company but skipped another entirely.
The Previous Report
STAT has already covered this story. The newsletter notes that the publication has previously written that Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk benefited from deals with the Trump administration to cut obesity drug costs for seniors.
The new question is whether Novo got an additional sweetener from those deals.
The Title’s Question
The newsletter’s title asks whether the administration cut Novo a huge financial win. STAT does not answer that question directly. Instead, the newsletter says Novo might have gotten an additional sweetener from those deals.
The Mistake Last Week
The newsletter also comes with an admission. Last week, the newsletter incorrectly attributed a post from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) to another conservative think tank. The correction is noted in the newsletter itself.
The newsletter also includes its contact information, asking readers to send tips and correction requests to [email protected] or John_Wilkerson.07 on Signal.
What We Don’t Know
The newsletter does not say what the additional sweetener might have been. It does not say what the administration negotiated with Novo beyond the MFN deals with Lilly. It does not say whether Novo benefited from the exemption.
The Bottom Line
STAT is asking the question, but the newsletter does not answer it. The administration’s negotiating position is under scrutiny, and the MFN exemption for Lilly’s GLP-1s is part of that scrutiny.
The newsletter itself is also admitting its own mistake from last week. The correction is a sign of transparency, but it also shows the publication’s reporting process is not perfect.
The newsletter ends with the question open. The additional sweetener is a possibility, but the newsletter does not confirm it. The administration’s negotiating position is the story, and the MFN exemption for Lilly’s GLP-1s is the twist.
| Report | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|
| STAT newsletter | Twice-weekly on Tuesdays and Thursdays | statnews.com |
The question is out there. The answer, for now, remains inside the administration’s files.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs neither the administration cutting a deal with Novo Nordisk nor Oz praising Lilly’s GLP-1s exempt from MFN agreements. It backs small business, individual freedom, and no agency writing its own authority over private life.
The story shows power gathering in one place: the administration cutting deals with drug companies while exempting others entirely. No single company should be exempt from MFN agreements, and the administration’s negotiating position needs scrutiny, not praise.
The paper wants accountability on government deals, not partisan cheerleading. The administration’s files should be open to scrutiny. The MFN exemption for Lilly’s GLP-1s is a twist in the story, and readers should watch for how it plays out.
Source material: “STAT+: Did the Trump administration just cut Novo a huge financial win?,” STAT.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.