In a major policy change that took effect on August 31, 2025, the Defense Health Agency (DHA) ended insurance coverage for a class of widely used weight-loss medications for military retirees and their dependents enrolled in TRICARE for Life. The shift removes access to several well-known drugs, including Wegovy, Zepbound, Saxenda, Qsymia, Phentermine, and Contrave. For many beneficiaries, this sudden development means losing affordable access to medications that had become central to managing obesity and related chronic health conditions.
The DHA explained that the decision was driven by federal statutes and regulations that limit how TRICARE for Life, which supplements Medicare for military retirees, can provide prescription drug benefits. While coverage of these medications had been in place, DHA officials determined that it was not authorized under Medicare rules. This ruling effectively means that retirees under TRICARE for Life must now pay out of pocket if they want to continue these treatments, with monthly costs for some drugs like Wegovy reaching more than $1,300.
For those enrolled in other TRICARE programs—such as TRICARE Prime, TRICARE Select, TRICARE Young Adult, or TRICARE Reserve Select—the policy remains unchanged. Beneficiaries in those plans can still receive coverage for weight-loss medications if they meet certain medical criteria, secure prior authorization, and work with a network provider. The DHA also clarified that medications prescribed for Type 2 diabetes, including Ozempic, Mounjaro, Trulicity, and Victoza, remain covered under TRICARE if they are deemed medically necessary. The distinction is an important one, as many of these same medications are prescribed off-label for weight loss, which is where the new restrictions take effect.
The response from military retiree groups and patient advocates has been swift and sharply critical. The Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) has strongly opposed the change, warning that it undermines the health progress made by many patients. The organization has urged the DHA and lawmakers to reconsider, arguing that the policy creates an unfair barrier to treatments that doctors have already deemed effective. According to MOAA, many retirees approved for these medications had already tried lifestyle interventions, such as diet and exercise programs, and in some cases, had attempted alternative therapies before turning to prescription solutions. By eliminating coverage, the DHA is placing financial burdens on those who are among the most vulnerable to chronic health risks, including obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
For patients, the consequences are personal and immediate. Some retirees have shared that their health had improved significantly while on these medications, citing reduced symptoms of metabolic syndrome, lower blood sugar levels, improved cardiovascular markers, and better sleep quality. The abrupt loss of coverage now leaves them with the difficult choice of either paying steep out-of-pocket costs or discontinuing treatments that have been life-changing. For older patients managing multiple health issues, this could mean a regression in overall well-being and an increased reliance on more expensive medical interventions in the future.
The DHA’s decision comes at a time when the use of GLP-1 medications, a class that includes both diabetes and weight-loss drugs, has surged nationwide. These drugs have been hailed as breakthroughs in the fight against obesity, which affects more than 40 percent of U.S. adults and is linked to a wide range of chronic illnesses. As demand for these medications continues to rise, questions of affordability and access are increasingly pressing. Private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid have all grappled with how to cover these treatments, balancing their proven benefits against the high costs that can strain healthcare budgets.
For military retirees and their families, the new TRICARE for Life policy underscores the complexity of navigating a health system that operates at the intersection of federal regulation and patient needs. While the DHA insists that it is following the law, critics argue that retirees who dedicated their careers to military service deserve better support, particularly when it comes to healthcare that helps prevent long-term illness. Advocates are calling for legislative solutions that could restore coverage or create new pathways for retirees to access these medications at a manageable cost.
The broader debate reflects a national challenge: how to integrate new, highly effective but expensive drugs into insurance systems that were not designed to accommodate them. As the controversy unfolds, the experiences of military retirees may serve as a bellwether for how other public and private health plans handle coverage for weight-loss medications in the years ahead. For now, thousands of retirees face uncertainty and frustration, caught between the promise of modern medicine and the realities of healthcare policy.
