CHROs, CFOs, and corporate board members all have their eye on healthcare spending

Employers grew more concerned about the high cost of pharmaceutical drugs last year, even as the White House rolled out a series of policies intended to lower prices of some popular medications.

Nearly three-quarters of employers said they were moderately, very, or extremely concerned about pharmacy costs being “unsustainable” in 2025, according to a recent report from NFP, a benefits consultancy that’s part of Aon. That’s up from 67% who expressed moderate to extreme concern about pharmacy costs in 2024.

The growing focus on pharmacy spending comes as employer health costs are projected to rise more than 9% this year, driven in part by coverage of costly GLP-1 medications for weight loss. Managing GLP-1 spending has become a strategy of its own, according to one NFP leader, who advocated for collaboration among CHROs, CFOs, and corporate boards to address this issue.

How HR is seeking to control prescription drug spend. President Donald Trump campaigned on overhauling the US healthcare system and has rolled out a number of policies intended to lower drug prices since taking office in 2024. A host of pharmaceutical manufacturers have agreed to sell their medications at a lower price point, including Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, which make GLP-1 drugs.

The hope is that these deals will eventually bring relief to the employer-sponsored insurance market. As of October 2025, though, GLP-1 diabetes and weight loss medications were still cited as the top driver of prescription drug spending among health benefits decision-makers surveyed by NFP, with 51% identifying them as such, up from 44% in 2024.

Despite their high cost, GLP-1s are gaining ground as a potential lever for talent attraction and retention. Indeed, 29% of workers told NFP they would switch jobs to gain GLP-1 coverage.

Still, decisions about coverage vary “dramatically” from one employer to the next, said Nick Conway, NFP’s president of Rx Solutions. Those who are covering the drugs are commonly turning to “bolt-on solutions” to help manage costs, he said. Such solutions may be offered by a pharmacy benefit manager or a third party, and may help employers evaluate whether GLP-1s are appropriate for their workers, as well as manage utilization.

Other employers may forgo working with their PBM entirely and turn to point solution vendors to help manage GLP-1s separately from other prescription drugs, he said.

Whatever approach HR teams land on, it looks likely that GLP-1s will require unique strategic thinking for the foreseeable future, Conway said. “I think GLP-1s will always be a specific, individual topic,” apart from pharmacy benefits more broadly, he explained.

Managing complex challenges surrounding pharmacy costs may benefit from cross-collaboration among HR and finance teams, as well as corporate boards, Conway suggested. “All this disruption is creating a more robust conversation at our employer clients to bring in either the chief financial officer of the business, or the board of the business, into these decisions,” he said.