Drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy are usually discussed in terms of waistlines, blood sugar and cost.

How much weight do people lose? Do they protect the heart? Can health systems afford them?

But a new study from Denmark asks a different question: what happens to people’s working lives after they start taking them?

The answer, according to the researchers, is that people work more.

Denmark offered a natural comparison between Ozempic and Wegovy

Ozempic and Wegovy belong to a family of medicines called GLP-1 drugs. They contain the same active ingredient, semaglutide, but are prescribed for different reasons.

In Denmark, that creates a natural comparison:

  • Ozempic is prescribed for type 2 diabetes, and its cost is subsidized by the public health system.
  • Wegovy is prescribed for weight management, and patients generally pay for it themselves.

Economists Christian Aleman, Fane Groes, Veda Narasimhan, Raül Santaeulàlia-Llopis and Tanya Surovtseva used Denmark’s population-wide administrative records, which link prescriptions, employment and earnings, to follow both groups.

Diabetes patients became more likely to work, and weight-loss patients worked longer

People with diabetes (Ozempic):

  • The chance of being employed rose by 4.1 percentage points.
  • On average, they worked 19.5 more hours per quarter.

In everyday terms, that’s roughly 4 more people in work out of every 100 patients, and about 1.5 extra hours a week, or around two and a half extra working days every three months.

People using it for weight management (Wegovy):

  • Employment didn’t change much. Most were probably already working.
  • But among those with jobs, working hours rose by 29.7 hours per quarter.

That’s about 2.3 extra hours a week, or roughly four extra working days every three months, around 16 extra days a year.

(These everyday conversions are our own calculations from the study’s figures, assuming a 13-week quarter and a 7.5-hour working day.)

More hours, not higher pay

The researchers also looked at hourly wages.

They found no significant change.

That matters. It means people weren’t suddenly getting promoted or becoming more valuable per hour. They were earning more because they were working more.

The most likely explanation is health. Feeling better, having more energy, managing a chronic illness more effectively or taking fewer sick days can all make it easier to hold a job or take on more hours.

Who uses each drug may explain the difference

The difference between the groups is one of the study’s most interesting findings.

For people with diabetes, the drug helped some get back into work. For people paying for weight-loss treatment themselves, it mainly meant more hours in jobs they already had.

One plausible reason is who uses each drug. A subsidized diabetes treatment reaches a broader range of people, including some who are out of work. A drug people pay for out of pocket is more likely to be used by people who already have jobs and income.

That’s an interpretation, not something the study directly tested, but it shows how who pays for a treatment can shape who benefits and how.

Health spending can also be an economic investment

The bigger idea here is that health and work are linked.

When governments decide whether to pay for a treatment, they usually focus on medical costs and medical benefits: hospital stays avoided, years of life gained.

But if a treatment helps people work more, it also produces:

  • higher earnings for patients
  • more output for employers
  • more tax revenue for governments

The researchers built these effects into a public-finance model. They conclude that price regulation reduces the net cost of subsidizing the diabetes treatment, and that weight-management users generate additional income tax revenue. In other words, part of the drugs’ cost may come back through the labour market.

The paper’s summary doesn’t give specific revenue figures, so it’s not possible to say how much of the cost is recovered.

What the study doesn’t show

This is a CEPR discussion paper that has not yet been peer reviewed.

It’s not a randomized trial. The researchers compared people at different points around when they started treatment. Starting medication could coincide with other changes, such as a health scare or a new job, that also affect working hours. The authors ran several checks, including looking at people who stopped treatment and using matched comparison groups, but those can’t rule everything out.

The public-finance results come from a model, not direct measurement of tax receipts.

It’s Denmark. Health systems, drug prices and labour markets differ elsewhere, so effects may not carry over directly.

And it doesn’t mean anyone should start these drugs to work more. Treatment decisions belong with doctors and patients.

A medicine’s value can show up on the timesheet

GLP-1 drugs are among the most significant medical developments of recent years, and among the most expensive. Debates about who should get them often focus only on healthcare budgets.

This study suggests that view may be too narrow. If people work more once their health improves, the benefits ripple out to families, employers and public finances.

The value of a medicine may show up not only in the clinic, but on the timesheet.