Are Black and Latina women less likely to be prescribed a GLP-1?

Key takeaways

Dr. Linda's take

Here is something I wish more of my patients heard before their first appointment rather than after. When a treatment is genuinely useful, the next fair question is who actually gets offered it. For these medications, the honest answer is that the offer has not been handed out evenly. Black and Latina patients have been less likely to walk out of a visit with a prescription, and that holds across very different health systems and datasets.

I want to be precise about what that means and what it does not. It does not mean anything is wrong with you or your health. It means there is a pattern in how these medications get prescribed, and a pattern is something you can name out loud, ask about, and push against. Naming the gap is the first move. Everything below is what the data actually shows, so you can walk in informed rather than hopeful.

Are Black and Latina women less likely to be prescribed a GLP-1?

The evidence points the same direction across setting after setting.

In a Veterans Health Administration study of more than one million patients with type 2 diabetes, all racial groups had significantly lower odds of being prescribed a GLP-1 receptor agonist compared with White patients, and Black patients had the lowest odds of all. In that study, the adjusted odds of a GLP-1 receptor agonist prescription were 0.64 for Black patients and 0.88 for Hispanic or Latino patients, compared with White and non-Hispanic patients respectively. Put in plainer terms, prescription rates for GLP-1 receptor agonists in that study were 6.1% among Black patients and 8.2% among White patients.

It is not only the veterans data. In the Look AHEAD trial, initiation of newer diabetes medications was lower among Black participants, with a hazard ratio of 0.81, a difference that persisted independent of socioeconomic factors and was mostly driven by GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The pattern also shows up in obesity care, not just diabetes care. Among nearly 320,000 adults eligible for obesity treatment in Florida, the odds of starting a newer GLP-1 medication were lower for Black patients, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.87, and for Hispanic patients, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.84, compared with White patients.

And when researchers pool it all together, the signal holds. A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies found that the likelihood of filling a GLP-1 receptor agonist prescription was lower among Black patients, with an odds ratio of 0.78, compared with White patients. A larger meta-analysis pooling 26 studies and more than 14.6 million patients found that Black patients had reduced utilization of these medications, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.80, and Hispanic patients had reduced odds of GLP-1 receptor agonist use, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.81.

Six different datasets, one direction. This is a real and repeatedly measured gap, not a one-off finding.

Why would a prescribing gap exist?

Some of it is money and coverage, and some of it is not.

In that large meta-analysis, patients with low socioeconomic status had reduced odds of utilization, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.73, and patients insured through Medicaid had lower odds than privately insured patients, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.70. Cost and insurance clearly matter, which is why coverage is worth asking about directly.

But cost is not the whole story. Remember that the Look AHEAD disparity persisted even after accounting for socioeconomic factors. And nationally, these gaps have proven stubborn over time: in 2018, compared with White adults, Black and Hispanic adults with diabetes had lower rates of using newer glucose-lowering drugs, with adjusted risk ratios of 0.44 and 0.52 respectively. In that national analysis, socioeconomic and health status were the main contributors to the disparities in newer drug use.

So the gap is partly structural, tied to income and coverage, and partly something that lingers even when those are equalized. Both parts are worth understanding, because both point to questions you can raise.

What does this gap mean for women specifically?

Here is a nuance I do not want you to miss, because it changes what you advocate for.

In that same meta-analysis, women overall had higher odds of GLP-1 receptor agonist utilization than men, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.33. Read that carefully. It means the disadvantage Black and Latina women face is best understood as being about race and ethnicity, not about being a woman. Being female, on its own, is not what closes the door.

There is also a hint in the data about what opens it. In the Florida obesity population, only 1.8% of eligible adults started one of these medications overall, and higher odds of starting were associated with being female, being middle-aged, having more outpatient visits, and seeing an endocrinologist. Where you are seen, and by whom, appears to matter.

This is a different question from whether these medications work as well for Black and Latina women, which is about how the medication performs once someone is on it. Access is about whether it gets offered at all. Black and Latina women also carry a higher baseline risk of obesity and diabetes, which is exactly why an access gap is so costly here.

What can you bring to your own appointment?

This is general education, not a plan for you specifically. But knowing the gap exists gives you fair questions to ask out loud:

If you are wondering whether treatment is even a fit for your situation, our eligibility quiz is one place to start.

The honest bottom line

The data does not say these medications work differently in your body. It says they have been handed out unevenly, and that Black and Latina patients have too often been on the short end of that. That is a fact about a system, not a verdict about you.

You are allowed to ask why. You are allowed to ask again. And you are allowed to expect a real answer rather than a shrug. Knowing the gap is documented, repeatedly, in large and serious studies is what lets you walk in as someone who already knows the terrain.

Frequently asked questions

Are Black and Latina women less likely to be prescribed a GLP-1?

Across large U.S. studies, Black patients and Hispanic or Latina patients are less likely than White patients to be prescribed or to fill a GLP-1 receptor agonist. This is a pattern in how the system prescribes, not a statement about any one person.

How big is the prescribing gap?

In that study, the adjusted odds of a GLP-1 receptor agonist prescription were 0.64 for Black patients and 0.88 for Hispanic or Latino patients, compared with White and non-Hispanic patients respectively. Put in plainer terms, prescription rates for GLP-1 receptor agonists in that study were 6.1% among Black patients and 8.2% among White patients.

Is the gap only about cost and insurance?

Partly, but not entirely. In that large meta-analysis, patients with low socioeconomic status had reduced odds of utilization, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.73, and patients insured through Medicaid had lower odds than privately insured patients, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.70. Yet in the Look AHEAD trial, initiation of newer diabetes medications was lower among Black participants, with a hazard ratio of 0.81, a difference that persisted independent of socioeconomic factors and was mostly driven by GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Does being a woman make it less likely?

Not on its own. In that same meta-analysis, women overall had higher odds of GLP-1 receptor agonist utilization than men, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.33. The disadvantage Black and Latina women face is best understood as being about race and ethnicity rather than sex.

Why does this gap matter for my health?

These medications reduce cardiovascular and metabolic risk in type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity, so unequal access can translate into unequal health outcomes. That is the reason a prescribing gap is worth naming and asking about, rather than accepting quietly.

References

1. Journal of general internal medicine (2026). Association of Social Determinants of Health with Utilization of SGLT2 Inhibitors and GLP1 Receptor Agonists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PubMed PMID 41838266. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41838266/ (Accessed 2026-07-18).
2. JAMA (2022). Association of Race and Ethnicity With Prescription of SGLT2 Inhibitors and GLP1 Receptor Agonists Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in the Veterans Health Administration System. PubMed PMID 36066519. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36066519/ (Accessed 2026-07-18).
3. Lancet regional health. Americas (2022). Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in the use of newer diabetes medications in the Look AHEAD study. PubMed PMID 35291207. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35291207/ (Accessed 2026-07-18).
4. Diabetes, obesity & metabolism (2025). Regional trends and disparities in newer GLP1 receptor agonist initiation among real-world adult patients eligible for obesity treatment. PubMed PMID 40035205. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40035205/ (Accessed 2026-07-18).
5. Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities (2026). Evidence-Based Practice in Prescribing SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA Across Ethnic and Racial Groups: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies. PubMed PMID 40259185. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40259185/ (Accessed 2026-07-18).
6. Diabetes, obesity & metabolism (2023). Changes in racial and ethnic disparities in glucose-lowering drug utilization and glycated haemoglobin A1c in US adults with diabetes: 2005-2018. PubMed PMID 36251173. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36251173/ (Accessed 2026-07-18).

---

*This article is general education and is not medical advice. It cannot tell you what is right for your body. Talk with a licensed clinician about your own situation.*

*Written and clinically reviewed by Dr. Linda Moleon, MD. Last reviewed 2026-07-18.*