Runtime context
{
"memoryMode": "RUN_SCOPED",
"stepOutputs": [
{
"output": {
"structuredBrief": {
"depth": "Deep-dive, decision-oriented analysis",
"audience": "Commercial strategy, market access, HEOR, and launch planning teams",
"objective": "Assess evolving U.S. payer coverage policies, evidence requirements, reimbursement considerations, and market-access barriers for obesity therapies to inform payer engagement strategy, value proposition development, and evidence-generation planning ahead of launch.",
"topic_type": "Market access / payer policy / reimbursement landscape",
"assumptions": [
"'Major' payers includes leading national and regional commercial plans, PBMs, and Medicare Advantage organizations in the U.S.",
"Coverage policies and payer behaviors should be assessed primarily through publicly available and gray-literature sources.",
"'Next-generation GLP-1/GIP therapies' refers to emerging and marketed incretin-based anti-obesity agents with differentiated efficacy and/or safety profiles.",
"The requested time horizon prioritizes the most recent 12–18 months, but may reference earlier policy shifts where needed for context.",
"Ambiguity remains around whether the analysis should focus only on obesity indications or also include diabetes-adjacent coverage spillover when relevant."
],
"geographies": [
"United States"
],
"target_topic": "U.S. payer coverage, access, and value assessment trends for anti-obesity pharmacotherapies",
"time_horizon": "Current state with emphasis on changes over the last 12–18 months",
"output_format": "Consulting-style research brief with synthesized findings from published and gray literature",
"target_entities": [
"National commercial health plans",
"Regional commercial health plans",
"PBMs",
"Medicare Advantage organizations",
"Payer medical and pharmacy policy teams",
"Managed care decision-makers"
],
"decision_context": "Support pre-launch and launch planning for next-generation GLP-1/GIP anti-obesity therapies by identifying payer coverage dynamics, utilization management criteria, and evidence priorities that shape access decisions.",
"research_question": "How do major U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage payers evaluate and manage coverage for anti-obesity pharmacotherapies, and which evidence, value drivers, and utilization management approaches most influence market access decisions for next-generation GLP-1/GIP therapies?",
"priority_dimension": [
"Coverage policy evolution",
"Prior authorization criteria",
"Step therapy requirements",
"Formulary positioning",
"Evidence expectations (long-term outcomes, cardiovascular benefit, adherence, cost offsets)",
"Competitor payer positioning",
"Outcomes-based contracting potential"
]
}
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"stepKey": "research-interpret-brief",
"telemetry": {
"cost": {
"model": "gpt-5.4-mini",
"actualUsd": 0.002647,
"estimatedUsd": null,
"pricingSource": "openai-api-pricing-2026-04-28-standard"
},
"usage": {
"inputTokens": 686,
"totalTokens": 1160,
"input_tokens": 686,
"outputTokens": 474,
"total_tokens": 1160,
"output_tokens": 474
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"provider": "OPENAI",
"durationMs": 4481,
"providerMode": "agents-sdk",
"excludedToolKeys": [],
"rawResponseCount": 1,
"outputSchemaEnabled": true
}
},
{
"output": {
"researchPlan": {
"knownRisks": [
"Public policies may lag actual utilization management practices",
"Employer-funded benefits and carve-outs can obscure true access",
"Medicare Advantage obesity coverage may be constrained by statutory/benefit design limits",
"Gray literature may overrepresent promotional or anecdotal claims",
"Next-gen GLP-1/GIP evidence may be immature, limiting payer conclusions",
"Coverage varies widely by plan, employer, and line of business"
],
"workstreams": [
{
"name": "Coverage policy landscape",
"keyQuestions": [
"Which major U.S. commercial plans, PBMs, and Medicare Advantage organizations cover anti-obesity drugs today?",
"How have coverage decisions changed in the last 12–18 months?",
"What distinguishes obesity-only coverage from diabetes spillover coverage?"
],
"analogScoring": {
"weights": [
0.35,
0.3,
0.2,
0.15
],
"dimensions": [
"Coverage breadth",
"Access restrictiveness",
"Policy recency",
"Transparency"
]
},
"sourceClasses": [
"Payer medical/pharmacy policies",
"Formulary/exclusion lists",
"PBM policy bulletins",
"Employer-benefit summaries where public"
],
"optionalEvidence": [
"Historical policy timelines",
"Member-facing benefit language"
],
"requiredEvidence": [
"Current coverage status for top plans",
"Documented policy changes over last 12–18 months",
"Obesity vs diabetes indication distinctions"
]
},
{
"name": "Utilization management criteria",
"keyQuestions": [
"What prior authorization criteria are most common?",
"What step therapy, BMI, comorbidity, lifestyle-trial, and prescriber requirements are used?",
"How strict are reauthorization and discontinuation rules?"
],
"analogScoring": {
"weights": [
0.4,
0.25,
0.2,
0.15
],
"dimensions": [
"Restrictiveness",
"Clinical specificity",
"Operational burden",
"Durability of access"
]
},
"sourceClasses": [
"PA criteria documents",
"Clinical policy manuals",
"Pharmacy criteria repositories",
"Provider guidance"
],
"optionalEvidence": [
"Appeals/grievance patterns",
"Member program materials"
],
"requiredEvidence": [
"PA and step edits for representative payers",
"BMI/comorbidity thresholds",
"Renewal and stop-rule criteria"
]
},
{
"name": "Value drivers and evidence expectations",
"keyQuestions": [
"What evidence do payers cite as decision-critical?",
"How important are long-term outcomes, CV benefit, adherence, weight maintenance, and cost offsets?",
"What evidence gaps most limit coverage expansion?"
],
"analogScoring": {
"weights": [
0.35,
0.3,
0.2,
0.15
],
"dimensions": [
"Decision relevance",
"Evidence strength",
"Economic credibility",
"Transferability"
]
},
"sourceClasses": [
"Payer interviews/advisory notes if public",
"Conference presentations",
"HEOR publications",
"Payer policy rationale statements"
],
"optionalEvidence": [
"Real-world evidence studies",
"Budget impact models"
],
"requiredEvidence": [
"Explicit payer-cited evidence requirements",
"Evidence on outcomes payers reference",
"Coverage rationale tied to cost/value"
]
},
{
"name": "Competitor and market-access benchmarking",
"keyQuestions": [
"How do incumbent incretin and non-incretin obesity therapies compare on access?",
"Which competitors have favorable or unfavorable payer positioning?",
"What launch/access lessons transfer to next-gen GLP-1/GIP agents?"
],
"analogScoring": {
"weights": [
0.3,
0.3,
0.2,
0.2
],
"dimensions": [
"Access parity",
"Differentiation",
"Defensibility",
"Launch relevance"
]
},
"sourceClasses": [
"Competitor market access decks",
"Trade press",
"Payer policy comparisons",
"Conference abstracts/presentations"
],
"optionalEvidence": [
"Analyst reports",
"Employer adoption signals"
],
"requiredEvidence": [
"Side-by-side access benchmarks for key therapies",
"Notable payer positioning differences",
"Recent access wins/losses"
]
},
{
"name": "Outcomes-based contracting and reimbursement trends",
"keyQuestions": [
"Are any outcomes-based contracts or innovative reimbursement models emerging for obesity therapies?",
"What endpoints and operational terms appear feasible for payers and manufacturers?",
"What barriers limit contracting adoption?"
],
"analogScoring": {
"weights": [
0.3,
0.25,
0.25,
0.2
],
"dimensions": [
"Feasibility",
"Economic leverage",
"Measureability",
"Scalability"
]
},
"sourceClasses": [
"Public contract announcements",
"Conference panel summaries",
"Managed care commentary",
"HEOR/reimbursement analyses"
],
"optionalEvidence": [
"Cross-therapy analogs from diabetes/cardiometabolic drugs",
"Legal/regulatory commentary"
],
"requiredEvidence": [
"Documented examples or credible signals of novel contracting",
"Feasible outcome measures",
"Operational barriers"
]
}
],
"stopConditions": [
"Sufficient coverage of top national plans, top PBMs, and a representative set of regional plans/MA organizations is achieved",
"Each priority dimension has at least one high-confidence finding supported by multiple source classes",
"Policy changes over the last 12–18 months are mapped for the most influential payers",
"No materially new payer policy or evidence themes emerge from additional source review"
]
}
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"stepKey": "research-build-research-plan",
"telemetry": {
"cost": {
"model": "gpt-5.4-mini",
"actualUsd": 0.005689,
"estimatedUsd": null,
"pricingSource": "openai-api-pricing-2026-04-28-standard"
},
"usage": {
"inputTokens": 1711,
"totalTokens": 2690,
"input_tokens": 1711,
"outputTokens": 979,
"total_tokens": 2690,
"output_tokens": 979
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"provider": "OPENAI",
"durationMs": 6907,
"providerMode": "agents-sdk",
"excludedToolKeys": [],
"rawResponseCount": 1,
"outputSchemaEnabled": true
}
},
{
"output": {
"researchSources": {
"sources": [
{
"title": "UnitedHealthcare Pharmacy prior authorization notification for weight loss/appetite suppression medications",
"evidence": "Lists weight-loss medications including Wegovy, Zepbound, Saxenda, Qsymia, Contrave, orlistat, and stimulants under a 2026 prior authorization notification; effective 5/1/2026.",
"confidence": "high",
"sourceClass": "Payer policy / PA notice",
"urlOrReference": "https://www.uhcprovider.com/content/dam/provider/docs/public/prior-auth/drugs-pharmacy/commercial/r-z/PA-Notification-Weight-Loss.pdf?blog_category=Medications+%26+treatments%2CWeight+management&blog_tag=Insurance%2Cno-excerpt%2CSaxenda"
},
{
"title": "Aetna Medicare HIDE (HMO D-SNP) Medicaid Weight Loss Prior Authorization Criteria",
"evidence": "Shows obesity/weight-loss prior auth criteria with BMI thresholds, age limits, and comorbidity requirements; states non-GLP-1s only for preferred agents and no update since 12/12/2025.",
"confidence": "high",
"sourceClass": "Payer policy / PA criteria",
"urlOrReference": "https://www.aetna.com/content/dam/aetna/medicaid/pdfs/formulary-updates/2026/Anti_Obesity_Agents_MI_HIDE_2026_updated_criteria122025_WF_approved_remediated.pdf"
},
{
"title": "Optum Rx continues to improve the prior auth experience",
"evidence": "States Optum Rx will reduce reauthorizations for an additional 40 drugs on Jan. 1, 2026 and has expanded reduced reauthorization across chronic medications, indicating a broader UM trend.",
"confidence": "medium",
"sourceClass": "PBM policy bulletin / corporate update",
"urlOrReference": "https://www.optum.com/en/newsroom/pharmacy-medications/optum-rx-continues-improve-prior-authorization-experience.html"
}
]
}
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"stepKey": "research-retrieve-sources",
"telemetry": {
"cost": {
"model": "gpt-5.4-mini",
"actualUsd": 0.011796,
"estimatedUsd": null,
"pricingSource": "openai-api-pricing-2026-04-28-standard"
},
"usage": {
"inputTokens": 12632,
"totalTokens": 13148,
"input_tokens": 12632,
"outputTokens": 516,
"total_tokens": 13148,
"output_tokens": 516
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"provider": "OPENAI",
"durationMs": 7680,
"providerMode": "agents-sdk",
"excludedToolKeys": [],
"rawResponseCount": 1,
"outputSchemaEnabled": true
}
},
{
"output": {
"marketScan": {
"Key Assumptions": "• Cigna and Humana policies parallel UHC/Aetna frameworks given industry norms; direct policy documents unavailable. \n• Absence of public OBC announcements indicates an early developmental stage for obesity therapy contracting. \n• Payers will require supplementary real‐world and economic evidence beyond clinical trial data to support favorable access and step‐edit waivers.",
"Coverage Policy Landscape": "• UnitedHealthcare (UHC) Commercial Plans implemented an optional prior authorization/notification program effective May 1, 2026 for weight‐loss/appetite‐suppression medications (including Wegovy®, Zepbound™, Saxenda®, Qsymia®, Contrave®, orlistat, stimulants and others). UHC criteria require: indication‐specific rationale (e.g., appetite suppression, cardiovascular (CVD) risk reduction, MASH, obstructive sleep apnea), adjunctive lifestyle modification, age thresholds (≥12 years for select agents, >16–18 for others), and BMI ≥30 kg/m² (or ≥27 kg/m² plus a comorbidity). Reauthorization intervals vary by agent from 4–12 months with documented weight‐loss response (3–5% minimum) and continued lifestyle adherence ([uhcprovider.com](https://www.uhcprovider.com/content/dam/provider/docs/public/prior-auth/drugs-pharmacy/commercial/r-z/PA-Notification-Weight-Loss.pdf)). \n• Aetna Medicare HIDE (HMO D‐SNP) updated anti‐obesity prior authorization criteria on December 12, 2025. Preferred non‐GLP-1s (e.g., phentermine, orlistat, phendimetrazine) require: age ≥18 years with BMI ≥30 kg/m², or BMI ≥27 kg/m² plus ≥1 weight‐related comorbidity, prescriber attestation of optimized therapy and safety screening. GLP-1/GIP agents (Saxenda®, Wegovy®, Zepbound®) are non‐preferred, requiring trial/failure of all five non‐GLP-1 classes plus additional clinical attestations (e.g., GLP-1 reserved to avert bariatric surgery) ([aetna.com](https://www.aetna.com/content/dam/aetna/medicaid/pdfs/formulary-updates/2026/Anti_Obesity_Agents_MI_HIDE_2026_updated_criteria122025_WF_approved_remediated.pdf)). \n• Optum Rx (PBM) expanded its reduced‐reauthorization program to 40 additional chronic medications (including obesity therapies) on January 1, 2026, and scaled its PreCheck™ PA automation (now covering 45 medications) to streamline approval (67% automation, 88% fewer appeals), reflecting a broader industry trend toward reducing operational burdens in utilization management ([optum.com](https://www.optum.com/en/newsroom/pharmacy-medications/optum-rx-continues-improve-prior-authorization-experience.html)). \n• Assumption: Cigna and Humana commercial and Medicare Advantage plans have adopted analogous PA frameworks (BMI/comorbidity thresholds, step edits and lifestyle requirements) for anti‐obesity pharmacotherapies consistent with peer‐payer practices (assumption).",
"Utilization Management Criteria": "• Common prior authorization triggers across UHC and Aetna policies include: BMI thresholds (≥30 kg/m² or ≥27 kg/m² plus ≥1 comorbidity), age requirements (pediatric vs adult), prescriber attestations of lifestyle‐modification adjunct, and indication specificity (e.g., risk reduction of major adverse CVD events, MASH, OSA) ([uhcprovider.com](https://www.uhcprovider.com/content/dam/provider/docs/public/prior-auth/drugs-pharmacy/commercial/r-z/PA-Notification-Weight-Loss.pdf)). \n• Reauthorization rules require documented clinical response: UHC mandates ≥3–5% weight loss (agent‐specific), lifestyle adherence, and issues reauthorizations for 6–12 months; Aetna requires ≥5% weight loss (adults) or BMI percentile maintenance/improvement (pediatrics) for renewals (initial and renewal durations of six months) ([uhcprovider.com](https://www.uhcprovider.com/content/dam/provider/docs/public/prior-auth/drugs-pharmacy/commercial/r-z/PA-Notification-Weight-Loss.pdf)). \n• Step therapy: Aetna enforces trial/failure of all five preferred non‐GLP-1 weight‐loss classes before GLP-1 initiation; UHC offers direct access under PA for both GLP-1 and non‐GLP-1 agents but refers nonformulary cases to separate criteria ([uhcprovider.com](https://www.uhcprovider.com/content/dam/provider/docs/public/prior-auth/drugs-pharmacy/commercial/r-z/PA-Notification-Weight-Loss.pdf)). \n• Automation & operational burden: Optum Rx’s PreCheck™ reduces average PA approval time from 8.5 hours to <30 seconds, suggesting PBMs can mitigate physician and pharmacy workload and accelerate patient access ([optum.com](https://www.optum.com/en/newsroom/pharmacy-medications/optum-rx-continues-improve-prior-authorization-experience.html)). \n• Assumption: Other leading PBMs (e.g., CVS Caremark, Express Scripts) have deployed similar BMI/comorbidity PA criteria and are exploring or implementing PA automation technologies to align with industry benchmarks (assumption).",
"Value Drivers & Evidence Expectations": "• Clinical response benchmarks are integral: payers require evidence of ≥3–5% weight loss (UHC) or ≥5% (Aetna) to justify continued coverage, indicating that durable weight‐loss outcomes drive market access ([uhcprovider.com](https://www.uhcprovider.com/content/dam/provider/docs/public/prior-auth/drugs-pharmacy/commercial/r-z/PA-Notification-Weight-Loss.pdf)). \n• Cardiovascular benefit: UHC explicitly covers semaglutide (Wegovy) for major adverse CVD risk reduction in patients with established ASCVD, signifying that demonstrated CVOT results (e.g., SELECT) are pivotal for favorable coverage placements ([uhcprovider.com](https://www.uhcprovider.com/content/dam/provider/docs/public/prior-auth/drugs-pharmacy/commercial/r-z/PA-Notification-Weight-Loss.pdf)). \n• Economic/value evidence: While PA policies emphasize clinical criteria, Optum Rx’s NCQA reaccreditation in UM underscores payers’ demand for evidence‐based decision‐making, implying budget‐impact and cost‐offset data (e.g., reduced T2D, CVD events) are valued in coverage deliberations ([optum.com](https://www.optum.com/en/newsroom/pharmacy-medications/optum-rx-continues-improve-prior-authorization-experience.html)). \n• Evidence gaps: Public policies lack explicit references to real‐world evidence or long‐term adherence data beyond trial endpoints, suggesting manufacturers should prioritize RWE generation, health economic modeling, and CV outcome data post‐launch (assumption).",
"Competitor & Market‐Access Benchmarking": "• Incumbent incretin therapies (Saxenda®, Wegovy®, Zepbound™) enjoy placement on national and regional formularies under PA protocols, reflecting broad recognition but with utilization barriers (UHC/Aetna PA, step edits) ([uhcprovider.com](https://www.uhcprovider.com/content/dam/provider/docs/public/prior-auth/drugs-pharmacy/commercial/r-z/PA-Notification-Weight-Loss.pdf)). \n• Non‐incretin agents (Contrave®, Qsymia®, orlistat) remain preferred as first‐line per Aetna’s non‐GLP-1 status but are subject to BMI/comorbidity PA, indicating segmented access parity across mechanism classes ([aetna.com](https://www.aetna.com/content/dam/aetna/medicaid/pdfs/formulary-updates/2026/Anti_Obesity_Agents_MI_HIDE_2026_updated_criteria122025_WF_approved_remediated.pdf)). \n• Next‐generation GLP-1/GIP therapies, pending differentiated efficacy/safety profiles, are expected to follow similar PA frameworks; differentiation on superior weight‐loss magnitude, CV protection, or metabolic comorbidity impact could support preferred tiering or modified step edits (assumption).",
"Implications for Next‐Gen GLP-1/GIP Launch": "• Prepare a payer dossier emphasizing superior and durable weight‐loss outcomes, CV event reduction data, and health economic models demonstrating cost offsets. \n• Engage PBMs early to explore PA automation (e.g., PreCheck™ integrations) to streamline provider workflows and reduce access delays. \n• Leverage differentiation on comorbidity‐specific indications (e.g., MASH, CVD risk) to negotiate preferred formulary positioning or step‐edit exemptions. \n• Pilot outcomes‐based agreements tied to clear, measurable endpoints (≥5% weight loss, reduction in CVD events) to align manufacturer and payer incentives ahead of broader contracting uptake.",
"Outcomes‐Based Contracting & Reimbursement Trends": "• No publicly documented outcomes‐based contracts (OBCs) for anti‐obesity therapies identified; market appears nascent for OBC in obesity despite precedents in diabetes (assumption). \n• Feasibility signals: UHC’s inclusion of CVD risk reduction and manufacturer‐payer dialogue on CVOT and MASH indications hint at tangible endpoints for OBC (e.g., ≥5% weight loss, reduction in CVD events) that could underpin pilot agreements (assumption). \n• Barriers: Measuring long‐term, multifactorial obesity outcomes, data sharing constraints, and benefit‐design heterogeneity likely impede large‐scale OBC adoption; payers’ current focus remains on traditional PA and reauthorization metrics (assumption)."
}
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"stepKey": "research-synthesize-market-scan",
"telemetry": {
"cost": {
"model": "o4-mini",
"actualUsd": null,
"estimatedUsd": null,
"pricingSource": null
},
"usage": {
"inputTokens": 20786,
"totalTokens": 25867,
"input_tokens": 20786,
"outputTokens": 5081,
"total_tokens": 25867,
"output_tokens": 5081
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"provider": "OPENAI",
"durationMs": 49860,
"providerMode": "agents-sdk",
"excludedToolKeys": [],
"rawResponseCount": 1,
"outputSchemaEnabled": true
}
},
{
"output": {
"analogCandidates": {
"1": {
"analog": "UnitedHealthcare commercial weight-loss PA program (2026)",
"scores": {
"transparency": 5,
"policyRecency": 5,
"coverageBreadth": 5,
"accessRestrictiveness": 4
},
"weightedScore": 4.65,
"keyDifferences": [
"Plan-specific rather than market-wide",
"May not reflect employer carve-outs",
"Not Medicare Advantage",
"Policy implementation can lag actual adjudication"
],
"recommendation": "select",
"keySimilarities": [
"Commercial payer decision-making",
"Anti-obesity pharmacotherapy coverage",
"BMI/comorbidity criteria",
"Lifestyle-trial expectations",
"Renewal tied to response"
],
"whyStructurallyRelevant": "Direct payer-policy analog for how a major national commercial plan operationalizes obesity drug access, including PA logic, reauthorization, and differentiation by indication."
},
"2": {
"analog": "Aetna Medicare HIDE anti-obesity PA criteria (2025/2026)",
"scores": {
"transparency": 5,
"policyRecency": 5,
"coverageBreadth": 3,
"accessRestrictiveness": 5
},
"weightedScore": 4.2,
"keyDifferences": [
"HIDE D-SNP/Medicaid context, not standard commercial",
"May overstate restrictiveness vs broader MA",
"State/segment-specific",
"Less informative on broad formulary dynamics"
],
"recommendation": "select",
"keySimilarities": [
"PA-driven access control",
"BMI and comorbidity thresholds",
"Step therapy before GLP-1s",
"Reauthorization requirements",
"Useful for MA/Medicaid-style managed care logic"
],
"whyStructurallyRelevant": "Strong analog for strict step-therapy and benefit-design constraints, especially where GLP-1s are positioned as non-preferred after failure of older agents."
},
"3": {
"analog": "Optum Rx prior authorization automation / reduced reauthorization initiative (2026)",
"scores": {
"transparency": 4,
"policyRecency": 5,
"coverageBreadth": 4,
"accessRestrictiveness": 2
},
"weightedScore": 3.65,
"keyDifferences": [
"Not obesity-specific policy content",
"Corporate bulletin rather than detailed criteria",
"More about process than coverage",
"Weak on evidence/value thresholds"
],
"recommendation": "select",
"keySimilarities": [
"PBM-mediated access management",
"Prior authorization workflow",
"Chronic therapy context",
"Impacts speed of access and provider burden",
"Relevant to next-gen launch operations"
],
"whyStructurallyRelevant": "Useful operational analog for utilization-management trend: how PBMs reduce administrative burden while preserving control over expensive chronic therapies."
},
"4": {
"analog": "Publicly documented obesity outcomes-based contracting pilots",
"scores": {
"transparency": 1,
"policyRecency": 1,
"coverageBreadth": 1,
"accessRestrictiveness": 1
},
"weightedScore": 1,
"keyDifferences": [
"No clear public examples identified",
"Likely sparse and anecdotal",
"Low evidence quality",
"Structurally important but empirically weak"
],
"recommendation": "reject",
"keySimilarities": [
"Obesity therapy reimbursement",
"Focus on measurable outcomes",
"Potential alignment on weight-loss endpoints",
"Relevant to payer-manufacturer risk sharing"
],
"whyStructurallyRelevant": "Best analog for emerging reimbursement innovation if the question is whether obesity therapies can move beyond PA into performance-based payment."
},
"5": {
"analog": "Wegovy cardiovascular risk-reduction coverage logic (commercial payer policies)",
"scores": {
"transparency": 4,
"policyRecency": 5,
"coverageBreadth": 3,
"accessRestrictiveness": 4
},
"weightedScore": 4,
"keyDifferences": [
"Applies to a narrower labeled indication",
"Not a full obesity-only access model",
"Depends on ASCVD population",
"May not generalize to all obese members"
],
"recommendation": "select",
"keySimilarities": [
"GLP-1-based obesity therapy",
"Coverage tied to hard outcomes",
"Evidence-driven access expansion",
"High relevance to payer value proposition"
],
"whyStructurallyRelevant": "Shows how payers may expand access when obesity therapy has a non-weight clinical outcome claim, informing evidence priorities for next-gen incretin products."
}
}
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"stepKey": "research-find-and-score-analogs",
"telemetry": {
"cost": {
"model": "gpt-5.4-mini",
"actualUsd": 0.013094,
"estimatedUsd": null,
"pricingSource": "openai-api-pricing-2026-04-28-standard"
},
"usage": {
"inputTokens": 12587,
"totalTokens": 13399,
"input_tokens": 12587,
"outputTokens": 812,
"total_tokens": 13399,
"output_tokens": 812
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"provider": "OPENAI",
"durationMs": 6716,
"providerMode": "agents-sdk",
"excludedToolKeys": [],
"rawResponseCount": 1,
"outputSchemaEnabled": true
}
},
{
"output": {
"analogAnalysis": {
"caveats": [
"UHC is commercial-plan specific and may not generalize to employer carve-outs or MA.",
"Aetna HIDE is a restrictive D-SNP/Medicaid-style segment and likely overstates baseline MA restrictiveness.",
"Optum Rx is process-only; it signals UM direction but not obesity-specific coverage criteria.",
"Wegovy CV-risk coverage applies to a narrower ASCVD population, so it is not a full obesity-class template.",
"Public OBC examples are too sparse to treat as an established market pattern."
],
"transferablePatterns": [
"Major payers manage obesity drugs primarily through PA plus renewal gates, not open access.",
"BMI thresholds plus comorbidity checks are standard entry criteria; response-based reauthorization is the key durability filter.",
"GLP-1/GIP agents face tighter positioning when older non-GLP-1 options must be tried first.",
"Coverage expands when a product has a non-weight hard outcome claim, especially cardiovascular risk reduction.",
"PBMs are moving toward PA automation/reduced reauthorization, but control remains intact."
],
"bestSupportedImplicationsForLaunch": [
"Expect PA-heavy access with BMI/comorbidity thresholds and evidence of lifestyle support.",
"Build the value story around durable weight loss, CV outcomes, adherence, and cost offsets.",
"Plan for step-therapy resistance if a non-GLP-1 preferred class exists.",
"Use indication-specific differentiation (CVD, MASH, OSA) to justify preferred placement or PA simplification.",
"Consider PA automation hooks as a provider-burden reduction lever, not as a coverage concession."
]
}
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"stepKey": "research-interpret-analogs",
"telemetry": {
"cost": {
"model": "gpt-5.4-mini",
"actualUsd": 0.007514,
"estimatedUsd": null,
"pricingSource": "openai-api-pricing-2026-04-28-standard"
},
"usage": {
"inputTokens": 8056,
"totalTokens": 8383,
"input_tokens": 8056,
"outputTokens": 327,
"total_tokens": 8383,
"output_tokens": 327
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"provider": "OPENAI",
"durationMs": 3502,
"providerMode": "agents-sdk",
"excludedToolKeys": [],
"rawResponseCount": 1,
"outputSchemaEnabled": true
}
},
{
"output": {
"evidence": {
"records": [
{
"flags": [
"date_future_relative_to_current_date"
],
"claims": [
"Lists weight-loss medications including Wegovy, Zepbound, Saxenda, Qsymia, Contrave, orlistat, and stimulants under a 2026 prior authorization notification; effective 5/1/2026."
],
"confidence": "high",
"source_url": "https://www.uhcprovider.com/content/dam/provider/docs/public/prior-auth/drugs-pharmacy/commercial/r-z/PA-Notification-Weight-Loss.pdf?blog_category=Medications+%26+treatments%2CWeight+management&blog_tag=Insurance%2Cno-excerpt%2CSaxenda",
"source_class": "Payer policy / PA notice",
"source_title": "UnitedHealthcare Pharmacy prior authorization notification for weight loss/appetite suppression medications"
},
{
"flags": [
"date_future_relative_to_current_date"
],
"claims": [
"Shows obesity/weight-loss prior auth criteria with BMI thresholds, age limits, and comorbidity requirements; states non-GLP-1s only for preferred agents and no update since 12/12/2025."
],
"confidence": "high",
"source_url": "https://www.aetna.com/content/dam/aetna/medicaid/pdfs/formulary-updates/2026/Anti_Obesity_Agents_MI_HIDE_2026_updated_criteria122025_WF_approved_remediated.pdf",
"source_class": "Payer policy / PA criteria",
"source_title": "Aetna Medicare HIDE (HMO D-SNP) Medicaid Weight Loss Prior Authorization Criteria"
},
{
"flags": [
"date_future_relative_to_current_date"
],
"claims": [
"States Optum Rx will reduce reauthorizations for an additional 40 drugs on Jan. 1, 2026 and has expanded reduced reauthorization across chronic medications, indicating a broader UM trend."
],
"confidence": "medium",
"source_url": "https://www.optum.com/en/newsroom/pharmacy-medications/optum-rx-continues-improve-prior-authorization-experience.html",
"source_class": "PBM policy bulletin / corporate update",
"source_title": "Optum Rx continues to improve the prior auth experience"
},
{
"flags": [
"contains_assumptions",
"mixes_source_and_inference",
"date_future_relative_to_current_date"
],
"claims": [
"UHC commercial plans implemented an optional prior authorization/notification program effective May 1, 2026.",
"Aetna Medicare HIDE updated anti-obesity prior authorization criteria on December 12, 2025.",
"Optum Rx expanded reduced reauthorization to 40 additional chronic medications on January 1, 2026.",
"Cigna and Humana policies parallel UHC/Aetna frameworks (assumption).",
"Other leading PBMs have similar BMI/comorbidity PA criteria and automation technologies (assumption).",
"Payers require evidence of 3-5% or 5% weight loss for renewal.",
"Wegovy is covered for major adverse cardiovascular risk reduction in established ASCVD.",
"No publicly documented outcomes-based contracts for anti-obesity therapies identified (assumption)."
],
"confidence": "medium",
"source_url": null,
"source_class": "AI-generated synthesis",
"source_title": "Market scan synthesis"
},
{
"flags": [
"contains_assumptions",
"mixes_source_and_inference",
"some_candidates_rejected"
],
"claims": [
"UnitedHealthcare commercial weight-loss PA program (2026) is a direct payer-policy analog.",
"Aetna Medicare HIDE anti-obesity PA criteria is a strong step-therapy analog.",
"Optum Rx prior authorization automation is an operational analog.",
"Publicly documented obesity outcomes-based contracting pilots were not identified.",
"Wegovy cardiovascular risk-reduction coverage logic informs payer value positioning."
],
"confidence": "medium",
"source_url": null,
"source_class": "AI-generated synthesis",
"source_title": "Analog candidates"
}
]
}
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"stepKey": "research-normalize-evidence",
"telemetry": {
"cost": {
"model": "gpt-5.4-mini",
"actualUsd": 0.009453,
"estimatedUsd": null,
"pricingSource": "openai-api-pricing-2026-04-28-standard"
},
"usage": {
"inputTokens": 8008,
"totalTokens": 8774,
"input_tokens": 8008,
"outputTokens": 766,
"total_tokens": 8774,
"output_tokens": 766
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"provider": "OPENAI",
"durationMs": 4680,
"providerMode": "agents-sdk",
"excludedToolKeys": [],
"rawResponseCount": 1,
"outputSchemaEnabled": true
}
},
{
"output": {
"claimRecord": {
"claims": [
{
"claim": "Major US payers are managing anti-obesity drugs primarily through prior authorization and renewal gates rather than open access.",
"confidence": "high"
},
{
"claim": "Common access criteria include BMI thresholds, comorbidity checks, age limits, and lifestyle-modification requirements.",
"confidence": "high"
},
{
"claim": "Reauthorization typically depends on documented clinical response, with payers using weight-loss thresholds to continue coverage.",
"confidence": "high"
},
{
"claim": "GLP-1/GIP therapies face tighter access when payers require failure of older non-GLP-1 options first.",
"confidence": "high"
},
{
"claim": "Coverage is more favorable when a therapy has a hard outcome claim, especially cardiovascular risk reduction.",
"confidence": "medium"
},
{
"claim": "PBMs are reducing administrative burden through PA automation and reduced reauthorization, while retaining utilization control.",
"confidence": "medium"
},
{
"claim": "Publicly documented outcomes-based contracts for obesity therapies appear sparse, suggesting the market is still early for value-based contracting.",
"confidence": "medium"
}
]
}
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"stepKey": "research-generate-claim-records",
"telemetry": {
"cost": {
"model": "gpt-5.4-mini",
"actualUsd": 0.010028,
"estimatedUsd": null,
"pricingSource": "openai-api-pricing-2026-04-28-standard"
},
"usage": {
"inputTokens": 12104,
"totalTokens": 12315,
"input_tokens": 12104,
"outputTokens": 211,
"total_tokens": 12315,
"output_tokens": 211
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"provider": "OPENAI",
"durationMs": 3452,
"providerMode": "agents-sdk",
"excludedToolKeys": [],
"rawResponseCount": 1,
"outputSchemaEnabled": true
}
},
{
"output": {
"challengeOutput": {
"caveats": [
"The evidence base is very thin: two payer policies plus one PBM corporate update do not support market-wide conclusions.",
"Both payer policy sources are future-dated relative to the current date, which creates verification risk and may reflect planned rather than broadly implemented rules.",
"UHC commercial, Aetna HIDE/D-SNP, and Optum Rx are not interchangeable samples; they reflect different benefit designs and populations.",
"Optum Rx automation is process evidence, not obesity-specific access evidence.",
"Wegovy cardiovascular-risk coverage applies to a narrow ASCVD subgroup and should not be generalized to all obesity coverage decisions."
],
"claimLevelRevisions": [
{
"issue": "Overgeneralized from a small, non-representative set of policies.",
"revisedClaim": "Several large US payers shown in the scan use prior authorization and renewal gates for anti-obesity drugs; this is suggestive, not proof of a universal market pattern.",
"originalClaim": "Major US payers are managing anti-obesity drugs primarily through prior authorization and renewal gates rather than open access."
},
{
"issue": "True but too generalized; needs scope limitation.",
"revisedClaim": "The reviewed policies include BMI thresholds, comorbidity checks, age limits, and lifestyle requirements, but the exact mix varies by payer and line of business.",
"originalClaim": "Common access criteria include BMI thresholds, comorbidity checks, age limits, and lifestyle-modification requirements."
},
{
"issue": "Supported only by the sampled policies.",
"revisedClaim": "In the cited policies, renewal often depends on documented response, including weight-loss thresholds; this may not be consistent across all payers or products.",
"originalClaim": "Reauthorization typically depends on documented clinical response, with payers using weight-loss thresholds to continue coverage."
},
{
"issue": "Weak generalization; based mainly on Aetna HIDE.",
"revisedClaim": "Some payer segments require step therapy through older non-GLP-1 agents before GLP-1 access; this is not clearly established as a broad GLP-1/GIP class norm.",
"originalClaim": "GLP-1/GIP therapies face tighter access when payers require failure of older non-GLP-1 options first."
},
{
"issue": "Plausible but overstated.",
"revisedClaim": "A hard-outcome claim such as cardiovascular risk reduction may improve coverage prospects in some settings, but the evidence here is indirect and limited to one payer example.",
"originalClaim": "Coverage is more favorable when a therapy has a hard outcome claim, especially cardiovascular risk reduction."
},
{
"issue": "Single-source process claim generalized to industry.",
"revisedClaim": "One PBM example shows reduced reauthorization and PA automation; broader industry adoption and impact on obesity coverage are not established here.",
"originalClaim": "PBMs are reducing administrative burden through PA automation and reduced reauthorization, while retaining utilization control."
},
{
"issue": "Absence-of-evidence claim treated too strongly.",
"revisedClaim": "I did not identify public obesity OBC examples in this scan, but absence of public disclosure is not strong evidence that contracts do not exist.",
"originalClaim": "Publicly documented outcomes-based contracts for obesity therapies appear sparse, suggesting the market is still early for value-based contracting."
}
],
"unresolvedQuestions": [
"Do CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Cigna, and Humana actually use similar obesity PA and step-therapy rules, or is that only an assumption?",
"Are the cited future-dated policies active, delayed, or draft/archived documents?",
"How common are employer carve-outs and benefit exclusions that override the payer policies shown here?",
"What obesity outcomes-based contracts exist but are not public?",
"How often do payer decisions explicitly reference real-world evidence, adherence, or cost offsets versus simple BMI/response rules?"
],
"confidenceAdjustments": [
{
"to": "medium",
"from": "high",
"claim": "Major US payers are managing anti-obesity drugs primarily through prior authorization and renewal gates rather than open access."
},
{
"to": "medium-high",
"from": "high",
"claim": "Common access criteria include BMI thresholds, comorbidity checks, age limits, and lifestyle-modification requirements."
},
{
"to": "medium",
"from": "high",
"claim": "Reauthorization typically depends on documented clinical response, with payers using weight-loss thresholds to continue coverage."
},
{
"to": "medium-low",
"from": "high",
"claim": "GLP-1/GIP therapies face tighter access when payers require failure of older non-GLP-1 options first."
},
{
"to": "low-medium",
"from": "medium",
"claim": "Coverage is more favorable when a therapy has a hard outcome claim, especially cardiovascular risk reduction."
},
{
"to": "low-medium",
"from": "medium",
"claim": "PBMs are reducing administrative burden through PA automation and reduced reauthorization, while retaining utilization control."
},
{
"to": "low",
"from": "medium",
"claim": "Publicly documented outcomes-based contracts for obesity therapies appear sparse, suggesting the market is still early for value-based contracting."
}
]
}
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"stepKey": "research-challenge-draft",
"telemetry": {
"cost": {
"model": "gpt-5.4-mini",
"actualUsd": 0.015002,
"estimatedUsd": null,
"pricingSource": "openai-api-pricing-2026-04-28-standard"
},
"usage": {
"inputTokens": 14062,
"totalTokens": 15052,
"input_tokens": 14062,
"outputTokens": 990,
"total_tokens": 15052,
"output_tokens": 990
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"provider": "OPENAI",
"durationMs": 6937,
"providerMode": "agents-sdk",
"excludedToolKeys": [],
"rawResponseCount": 1,
"outputSchemaEnabled": true
}
},
{
"output": {
"calibratedClaimRecord": {
"claims": [
{
"flags": {
"isUnsupported": false,
"requiresHumanReview": true,
"supportCountBelowThreshold": false
},
"revisedClaim": "Several large US payers shown in the scan use prior authorization and renewal gates for anti-obesity drugs; this is suggestive, not proof of a universal market pattern.",
"supportCount": 2,
"originalClaim": "Major US payers are managing anti-obesity drugs primarily through prior authorization and renewal gates rather than open access.",
"originalConfidence": "high",
"calibratedConfidence": "medium"
},
{
"flags": {
"isUnsupported": false,
"requiresHumanReview": true,
"supportCountBelowThreshold": false
},
"revisedClaim": "The reviewed policies include BMI thresholds, comorbidity checks, age limits, and lifestyle requirements, but the exact mix varies by payer and line of business.",
"supportCount": 2,
"originalClaim": "Common access criteria include BMI thresholds, comorbidity checks, age limits, and lifestyle-modification requirements.",
"originalConfidence": "high",
"calibratedConfidence": "medium-high"
},
{
"flags": {
"isUnsupported": false,
"requiresHumanReview": true,
"supportCountBelowThreshold": false
},
"revisedClaim": "In the cited policies, renewal often depends on documented response, including weight-loss thresholds; this may not be consistent across all payers or products.",
"supportCount": 2,
"originalClaim": "Reauthorization typically depends on documented clinical response, with payers using weight-loss thresholds to continue coverage.",
"originalConfidence": "high",
"calibratedConfidence": "medium"
},
{
"flags": {
"isUnsupported": false,
"requiresHumanReview": true,
"supportCountBelowThreshold": true
},
"revisedClaim": "Some payer segments require step therapy through older non-GLP-1 agents before GLP-1 access; this is not clearly established as a broad GLP-1/GIP class norm.",
"supportCount": 1,
"originalClaim": "GLP-1/GIP therapies face tighter access when payers require failure of older non-GLP-1 options first.",
"originalConfidence": "high",
"calibratedConfidence": "medium-low"
},
{
"flags": {
"isUnsupported": false,
"requiresHumanReview": true,
"supportCountBelowThreshold": true
},
"revisedClaim": "A hard-outcome claim such as cardiovascular risk reduction may improve coverage prospects in some settings, but the evidence here is indirect and limited to one payer example.",
"supportCount": 1,
"originalClaim": "Coverage is more favorable when a therapy has a hard outcome claim, especially cardiovascular risk reduction.",
"originalConfidence": "medium",
"calibratedConfidence": "low-medium"
},
{
"flags": {
"isUnsupported": false,
"requiresHumanReview": true,
"supportCountBelowThreshold": true
},
"revisedClaim": "One PBM example shows reduced reauthorization and PA automation; broader industry adoption and impact on obesity coverage are not established here.",
"supportCount": 1,
"originalClaim": "PBMs are reducing administrative burden through PA automation and reduced reauthorization, while retaining utilization control.",
"originalConfidence": "medium",
"calibratedConfidence": "low-medium"
},
{
"flags": {
"isUnsupported": true,
"requiresHumanReview": true,
"supportCountBelowThreshold": true
},
"revisedClaim": "I did not identify public obesity OBC examples in this scan, but absence of public disclosure is not strong evidence that contracts do not exist.",
"supportCount": 0,
"originalClaim": "Publicly documented outcomes-based contracts for obesity therapies appear sparse, suggesting the market is still early for value-based contracting.",
"originalConfidence": "medium",
"calibratedConfidence": "low"
}
],
"human_correction": {
"caveats": [
"The evidence base is very thin: two payer policies plus one PBM update do not support market-wide conclusions.",
"Both payer policy sources are future-dated relative to the current date, raising verification risk and reflecting planned rather than broadly implemented rules.",
"UHC commercial, Aetna HIDE/D-SNP, and Optum Rx reflect different benefit designs and populations and are not interchangeable.",
"Optum Rx automation is process evidence, not obesity-specific access evidence.",
"Wegovy cardiovascular-risk coverage applies to a narrow ASCVD subgroup and should not be generalized to all obesity coverage decisions."
],
"unresolvedQuestions": [
"Do CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Cigna, and Humana actually use similar obesity PA and step-therapy rules, or is that only an assumption?",
"Are the cited future-dated policies active, delayed, or draft/archived documents?",
"How common are employer carve-outs and benefit exclusions that override the payer policies shown here?",
"What obesity outcomes-based contracts exist but are not public?",
"How often do payer decisions explicitly reference real-world evidence, adherence, or cost offsets versus simple BMI/response rules?"
]
}
}
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"stepKey": "research-calibrate-claims",
"telemetry": {
"cost": {
"model": "o4-mini",
"actualUsd": null,
"estimatedUsd": null,
"pricingSource": null
},
"usage": {
"inputTokens": 13028,
"totalTokens": 15411,
"input_tokens": 13028,
"outputTokens": 2383,
"total_tokens": 15411,
"output_tokens": 2383
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"provider": "OPENAI",
"durationMs": 18320,
"providerMode": "agents-sdk",
"excludedToolKeys": [],
"rawResponseCount": 1,
"outputSchemaEnabled": true
}
},
{
"output": {
"finalDeliverable": {
"details": {
"caveats": [
"The evidence base is very thin.",
"Both payer policy sources are future-dated relative to the current date.",
"UHC commercial, Aetna HIDE/D-SNP, and Optum Rx are not interchangeable samples.",
"Optum Rx automation is process evidence, not obesity-specific access evidence.",
"Wegovy cardiovascular-risk coverage applies to a narrow ASCVD subgroup and should not be generalized."
],
"evidence_quality": "thin; based on two payer policies and one PBM update",
"unresolvedQuestions": [
"Do CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Cigna, and Humana use similar rules?",
"Are the cited future-dated policies active, delayed, or draft/archived?",
"How common are employer carve-outs and benefit exclusions?",
"What obesity outcomes-based contracts exist but are not public?",
"How often do payer decisions explicitly reference RWE, adherence, or cost offsets?"
]
},
"summary": "Bottom line: The evidence supports a PA-heavy, renewal-gated access environment for anti-obesity drugs in the payer examples reviewed, but the sample is too thin to claim a market-wide norm. The clearest access levers are BMI/comorbidity thresholds, lifestyle-adjunct expectations, response-based reauthorization, and in some cases step therapy through older non-GLP-1 agents.\n\nTop findings:\n- The reviewed payer policies use prior authorization and renewal gates rather than open access.\n- Access criteria include BMI thresholds, comorbidity checks, age limits, and lifestyle requirements, with exact mixes varying by payer and line of business.\n- Renewal often depends on documented response, including weight-loss thresholds.\n- One payer example uses step therapy that can delay GLP-1 access until older non-GLP-1 agents are tried.\n- A cardiovascular-risk indication may improve coverage prospects in some settings, but that evidence is indirect and limited.\n- One PBM example shows reduced reauthorization and PA automation, but broader obesity-specific impact is not established.\n- Publicly documented outcomes-based contracts for obesity therapies were not identified in this scan; absence of disclosure is not proof they do not exist.\n\nImplications for launch:\n- Lead with durable weight loss, cardiovascular outcomes where available, and evidence of adherence and cost offsets.\n- Prepare for PA and step-therapy friction, especially where older agents are preferred.\n- Treat PA automation as a workflow simplifier, not a coverage concession.\n- Use indication-specific differentiation to support preferred placement or PA simplification.\n\nSupplemental material: Original structured brief\n\n{\n \"research_question\": \"How do major U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage payers evaluate and manage coverage for anti-obesity pharmacotherapies, and which evidence, value drivers, and utilization management approaches most influence market access decisions for next-generation GLP-1/GIP therapies?\",\n \"objective\": \"Assess evolving U.S. payer coverage policies, evidence requirements, reimbursement considerations, and market-access barriers for obesity therapies to inform payer engagement strategy, value proposition development, and evidence-generation planning ahead of launch.\",\n \"topic_type\": \"Market access / payer policy / reimbursement landscape\",\n \"target_topic\": \"U.S. payer coverage, access, and value assessment trends for anti-obesity pharmacotherapies\",\n \"target_entities\": [\n \"National commercial health plans\",\n \"Regional commercial health plans\",\n \"PBMs\",\n \"Medicare Advantage organizations\",\n \"Payer medical and pharmacy policy teams\",\n \"Managed care decision-makers\"\n ],\n \"geographies\": [\n \"United States\"\n ],\n \"time_horizon\": \"Current state with emphasis on changes over the last 12–18 months\",\n \"decision_context\": \"Support pre-launch and launch planning for next-generation GLP-1/GIP anti-obesity therapies by identifying payer coverage dynamics, utilization management criteria, and evidence priorities that shape access decisions.\",\n \"priority_dimension\": [\n \"Coverage policy evolution\",\n \"Prior authorization criteria\",\n \"Step therapy requirements\",\n \"Formulary positioning\",\n \"Evidence expectations (long-term outcomes, cardiovascular benefit, adherence, cost offsets)\",\n \"Competitor payer positioning\",\n \"Outcomes-based contracting potential\"\n ],\n \"output_format\": \"Consulting-style research brief with synthesized findings from published and gray literature\",\n \"depth\": \"Deep-dive, decision-oriented analysis\",\n \"audience\": \"Commercial strategy, market access, HEOR, and launch planning teams\",\n \"assumptions\": [\n \"'Major' payers includes leading national and regional commercial plans, PBMs, and Medicare Advantage organizations in the U.S.\",\n \"Coverage policies and payer behaviors should be assessed primarily through publicly available and gray-literature sources.\",\n \"'Next-generation GLP-1/GIP therapies' refers to emerging and marketed incretin-based anti-obesity agents with differentiated efficacy and/or safety profiles.\",\n \"The requested time horizon prioritizes the most recent 12–18 months, but may reference earlier policy shifts where needed for context.\",\n \"Ambiguity remains around whether the analysis should focus only on obesity indications or also include diabetes-adjacent coverage spillover when relevant.\"\n ]\n}"
}
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"stepKey": "research-compose-deliverable",
"telemetry": {
"cost": {
"model": "gpt-5.4-mini",
"actualUsd": 0.019709,
"estimatedUsd": null,
"pricingSource": "openai-api-pricing-2026-04-28-standard"
},
"usage": {
"inputTokens": 19451,
"totalTokens": 20589,
"input_tokens": 19451,
"outputTokens": 1138,
"total_tokens": 20589,
"output_tokens": 1138
},
"status": "SUCCEEDED",
"provider": "OPENAI",
"durationMs": 6396,
"providerMode": "agents-sdk",
"excludedToolKeys": [],
"rawResponseCount": 1,
"outputSchemaEnabled": true
}
}
]
}