If insurers are suffering from "mortality slippage" because some of their customers purchased insurance while on GLP-1s then later discontinue the medication, then there must also be "mortality slippage" in the opposite direction. There must be customers who were not on GLP-1s when they purchased insurance, but could go on them, extending their lives in a way that is very profitable to the life insurance companies.
Furthermore, there are more people not on GLP-1s than on them (even with the recent surge in popularity) so this population that can give life insurance companies "excess" profits must outnumber those the article describes where the insurance company takes a loss.
At least in part, according to the article, because the not-yet-on-GLP1 folks are NOT customers since they are often denied coverage in the first place.
Furthermore, there are more people not on GLP-1s than on them (even with the recent surge in popularity) so this population that can give life insurance companies "excess" profits must outnumber those the article describes where the insurance company takes a loss.
Why can't they focus on this profit opportunity?