GLP-1 drugs linked to 17% drop in worker sick leave, study finds

A new economic study suggests that weight-loss medications like Ozempic and Wegovy could reshape workplace economics by keeping employees healthier and on the job. Researchers analyzing data from Denmark found that patients taking GLP-1 drugs—medications prescribed for diabetes and obesity—took 17% less long-term sick leave than those who didn't use them. Long-term sick leave, in this study's definition, means illness-related absences stretching beyond 30 days. The findings, published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, point to a cascade of financial benefits rippling through both individual paychecks and institutional budgets.

The math is straightforward enough. That 17% reduction in extended absences translates to roughly $866 in annual savings per worker on average, according to the research. The mechanism behind the benefit is rooted in what the drugs actually do: GLP-1 medications are known to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events—heart attacks, strokes—the kind of health crises that typically send workers out of the office for months at a time. Jonathan Zhang, a Duke University professor and one of the study's authors, framed it plainly when speaking to CBS News: those prevented events mean prevented absences, and prevented absences mean real money stays in circulation.

But the Danish context matters enormously here. Denmark's sick leave system operates under fundamentally different rules than what American workers experience. In Denmark, employers must pay workers their full salary for any illness-related absence up to 30 days. Beyond that threshold, the government picks up the tab. This split creates a peculiar incentive structure: employers benefit when GLP-1 use reduces short-term absences, while the state benefits when it reduces long-term ones. Zhang explained the dynamic with a concrete example: if an employee takes two days off sick in Denmark, the employer still pays their full salary. If GLP-1 medication prevents those two days of absence, the employer still pays the same salary—but the worker actually shows up. That's a win for the company's bottom line.

The American workplace operates under no such guarantee. Most U.S. workers have far more limited sick leave, if they have any formal policy at all. This absence of protection creates a different problem entirely. When American workers get sick, many come to work anyway, a phenomenon researchers call "presenteeism." They're physically present but functionally diminished—less productive, less focused, less capable of performing at their best. Neither the worker nor the employer gains in that scenario. The worker risks worsening their condition or spreading illness to colleagues. The company gets a body in a chair but not a functioning employee.

Zhang suggested that if GLP-1 drugs could reduce presenteeism in the American context—if they kept workers healthy enough to actually perform when they're at work—the calculus could shift dramatically. Healthier employees could be more productive. More productive employees might advance faster, earn more, contribute more to their organizations' bottom lines. The drugs could become not just a personal health intervention but an economic multiplier, benefiting workers through career advancement and employers through improved output.

Yet the study's real-world applicability to the U.S. remains uncertain. The Danish findings emerged from a health system and labor market fundamentally unlike America's. Whether the same 17% reduction in long-term sick leave would hold in a country with weaker sick leave protections, higher healthcare costs, and different patterns of medication access remains an open question. The research suggests a possibility, not a guarantee—a direction worth watching as GLP-1 drugs become more prevalent in American workplaces.