GLP-1 medicines are changing more than medication lists. They are changing the market for diabetes support.
Employers, health plans, clinicians, and patients are all asking versions of the same question: if a person starts a GLP-1 medicine, what happens around the prescription? Who helps them understand side effects, protect nutrition, stay active, navigate coverage, monitor blood sugar, and decide what comes next?
Two recent investor-news stories—one about Omada Health and another about DarioHealth—show that digital health companies see this as a major growth area. The more important question for patients and clinicians is not whether the market is growing. It is whether the resulting care actually helps people build durable health beyond a prescription.
What the two companies are reporting
Omada Health’s second-quarter 2026 results report $88 million in revenue, 45% year-over-year total-member growth, and expansion across diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol, and weight-related care. The company describes its model as virtual-first, combining care teams, connected devices, and technology-enabled support, including GLP-1 therapy support.
DarioHealth’s investor-relations materials likewise describe a broadening cardiometabolic platform. Its Q2 release reports a shift toward recurring business-to-business-to-consumer revenue, while a separate company announcement describes an integrated GLP-1 program that combines the digital platform with provider-backed clinical care.
Neither company is alone. As GLP-1 use grows, more organizations are trying to connect medication access with coaching, nutrition guidance, monitoring, and multi-condition support.
That can be a positive development. It can also create marketing language that gets ahead of the evidence.
A growing platform is not the same as a proven outcome
Revenue, number of members, covered lives, employer contracts, and engagement data can tell investors something about demand and company strategy. They do not, by themselves, establish that a platform improved A1C, preserved muscle, reduced complications, helped a person maintain results after stopping medication, or outperformed another form of care.
This distinction is especially important when digital-care companies use terms such as “AI-powered,” “personalized,” or “integrated.” Those terms may describe real features. They do not substitute for transparent outcomes research.
A thoughtful health-care article should not dismiss innovation simply because it is a business. It should ask a higher standard of questions:
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Who provides clinical oversight? | A digital platform should not obscure who is responsible for prescribing, monitoring, and referrals. |
| What does nutrition support involve? | Advice to “eat less” is not enough when appetite, protein intake, gastrointestinal symptoms, and glucose management can change. |
| Is there a plan for movement and strength? | Weight change is not the only outcome that matters; function and strength matter too. |
| How are outcomes measured? | Engagement or app use should not be presented as a clinical endpoint. |
| What happens when coverage changes or medication stops? | A durable plan should help people manage transitions, not just initiate treatment. |
| Is the medication source transparent? | Patients should know whether they are receiving an FDA-approved product and who is responsible for the prescription. |
These questions matter whether the care is digital, in person, or hybrid.
The promise of “between-visit” support
Diabetes and metabolic health are largely managed between appointments. People make food choices, take medication, notice symptoms, sleep poorly, exercise, get sick, care for others, and deal with life—often without a clinician in the room.
That gap is where a well-designed digital program can help. Remote coaching, connected glucose or blood-pressure devices, message-based follow-up, education, reminders, and easier access to a care team may make support more available. Digital care can also help a person bring more useful information into a clinical visit.
But the tool is only as good as the care model behind it. A dashboard cannot resolve food insecurity. A notification cannot replace a clinician evaluating persistent vomiting or severe abdominal pain. An engagement score cannot tell us whether a person feels physically stronger, has adequate nutrition, or is becoming anxious around food.
The best programs use technology to support human care, not to make human care optional.
GLP-1 support has to include safety and sourcing
As online pathways to GLP-1 treatment multiply, so do questions about product source and oversight. The FDA explains that unapproved versions of GLP-1 drugs are not reviewed by the agency for safety, effectiveness, or quality before marketing. The agency advises patients to obtain prescriptions from their clinicians and fill them through state-licensed pharmacies.
That does not mean every virtual program is unsafe or every in-person program is comprehensive. It means a credible platform should be transparent. Patients should be able to identify the prescriber, the pharmacy, the product, the plan for questions and follow-up, and the pathway for urgent medical concerns.
For people using a GLP-1 medicine to manage type 2 diabetes, coordination matters even more. Medication changes may affect glucose monitoring and interactions with other therapies. The person’s diabetes clinician, pharmacist, and any digital-care team should not operate in separate silos.
The outcome worth pursuing is not just access
Expanding access is valuable. But access to a prescription is not the same as access to care.
A complete metabolic-health model should help people strengthen the routines that remain important regardless of medication status: regular meals that fit their culture and budget, enough protein and fiber, enjoyable movement, strength work when appropriate, sleep, stress support, social connection, and follow-up for blood pressure, kidney health, and cardiovascular risk.
For some people, GLP-1 medication will be a meaningful part of that plan. For others, the focus may be different. The important point is that technology should broaden the range of support—not reduce health to a monthly subscription and a shipment.
The right question is not “digital care or real care?” The right question is whether a program uses technology to make qualified, whole-person care more available and accountable.
The Diabetes Reversal Group perspective
At Diabetes Reversal Group, we view digital tools as potentially useful supports—not substitutes for a complete type 2 diabetes plan. Holistic treatment means considering food quality, strength and movement, sleep, stress, relationships, access to care, monitoring, and medication when it is clinically indicated. We support innovation when it helps people do more than obtain a prescription: when it helps them understand, sustain, and personalize care.
By: Dr. Jeffrey Hockings, CEO & Founder & Kristine Burke, MD
Do not choose, start, stop, or adjust a medication based on an employer benefit, an app advertisement, or a general article. Discuss options with the clinician who manages your health history and care plan.