All GLP-1 medications from licensed 503A compounding pharmacies Browse Products

GLP-1 adoption in Texas

Texas has an estimated 1,425,254 GLP-1 users across 254 counties. Average estimated adoption is 0.8 percentage points below the national rate of 5.7%.

Last reviewed |Reviewed by the FormBlends Editorial Standards Team

4.9%

Est. adoption rate

1,425,254

Est. users

35.8%

Avg adult obesity

29,243,342

Adult population

State facts for search and AI answers

What makes the Texas GLP-1 page useful

This page ties the statewide answer to county-level demand, coverage context, and practical access checks. The goal is to help readers move from a broad state estimate to the local county or provider question that actually matters.

State signal

Texas: 254 counties, 1,425,254 estimated GLP-1 users

State pages summarize the county-level demand model before readers drill into local pages.

Model inputs

Average adoption 4.9%; average adult obesity 35.8%

The model uses CDC PLACES obesity prevalence, Census population, and KFF national GLP-1 utilization.

Coverage context

Texas Medicaid covers some non-GLP-1 weight-loss medications, but excludes GLP-1s for obesity. According to KFF (2026-01-16), federal Medicaid rules require GLP-1 coverage for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and sleep apnea indications. Obesity coverage is optional and varies by state.

Coverage policy can make real access higher or lower than projected local demand.

How to use this page

Find counties with the strongest demand signal, then verify coverage, provider access, and pharmacy source before starting care.

This is a local planning page, not a prescription recommendation.

Counties ranked by estimated adoption

Adoption strip: each bar is one county, tallest = highest estimated rate
County adoption strip. Tallest bar = highest projected adoption in Texas.
Ranked counties in Texas by estimated GLP-1 adoption.
RankCountyPopulationObesity %Est. adoptionEst. users
1Zavala9,70048.2%6.6%636
2Dimmit8,67247.7%6.5%563
3Starr65,71645.8%6.2%4,094
4Jim Hogg4,83045.7%6.2%300
5Hidalgo873,16745.0%6.1%53,525
6Maverick57,80644.6%6.1%3,509
7Zapata13,89644.5%6.1%842
8Willacy20,30844.4%6.0%1,227
9San Augustine7,92043.9%6.0%474
10Bell372,82143.5%5.9%22,071
11Brooks7,05943.2%5.9%415
12Cochran2,52942.8%5.8%147
13Webb267,28242.8%5.8%15,583
14Newton12,33342.6%5.8%715
15Presidio6,16842.5%5.8%357
16Caldwell46,14142.4%5.8%2,662
17Atascosa49,40342.2%5.7%2,836
18Duval9,96042.2%5.7%572
19Potter117,90542.0%5.7%6,744
20Frio18,15141.5%5.7%1,026
21Swisher6,98941.4%5.6%394
22Deaf Smith18,58541.3%5.6%1,044
23San Patricio68,94241.3%5.6%3,875
24Shelby24,15741.3%5.6%1,358
25Jasper33,03241.2%5.6%1,853
26Jefferson254,94241.2%5.6%14,302
27Terry11,81641.2%5.6%663
28Upton3,28441.2%5.6%184
29Hudspeth3,32941.1%5.6%186
30Angelina86,60841.0%5.6%4,833
31Cameron421,85441.0%5.6%23,539
32Crosby5,15741.0%5.6%288
33Foard1,07541.0%5.6%60
34Reeves14,02241.0%5.6%782
35Uvalde24,83341.0%5.6%1,386
36La Salle6,96540.9%5.6%388
37Culberson2,18140.8%5.5%121
38Jim Wells39,06040.8%5.5%2,168
39Nolan14,65740.8%5.5%813
40Walker77,18240.6%5.5%4,268
41Cottle1,64740.5%5.5%91
42Wharton41,61440.5%5.5%2,293
43Lamb13,02440.4%5.5%716
44Falls17,01340.3%5.5%934
45Camp12,54340.2%5.5%686
46Bastrop98,43540.1%5.5%5,375
47Ector162,30040.1%5.5%8,862
48Live Oak11,37440.1%5.5%621
49Refugio6,71840.1%5.5%367
50Crane4,63640.0%5.4%252
51Dawson12,34240.0%5.4%671
52Hall2,84740.0%5.4%155
53Kleberg30,86040.0%5.4%1,679
54Liberty93,52340.0%5.4%5,088
55Nueces353,24540.0%5.4%19,217
56Garza5,73539.9%5.4%311
57Limestone22,22239.9%5.4%1,207
58Pecos15,11439.9%5.4%821
59Wilbarger12,79539.9%5.4%695
60Briscoe1,29039.8%5.4%70
61Gonzales19,73639.8%5.4%1,070
62Dallam7,16539.7%5.4%387
63Floyd5,38639.7%5.4%291
64Lee17,54339.6%5.4%946
65Medina51,43239.6%5.4%2,772
66Ochiltree9,92439.6%5.4%535
67Anderson58,07739.5%5.4%3,125
68Bailey6,90239.5%5.4%371
69Bee30,97739.5%5.4%1,667
70Hale32,52539.5%5.4%1,750
71Matagorda36,25139.5%5.4%1,950
72Palo Pinto28,56939.4%5.4%1,531
73Tyler19,96239.4%5.4%1,070
74Cass28,63739.3%5.3%1,532
75Karnes14,80539.3%5.3%792
76Harrison69,09839.2%5.3%3,690
77Collingsworth2,86539.1%5.3%152
78Fannin36,05239.1%5.3%1,918
79Marion9,66839.1%5.3%514
80McMullen67039.1%5.3%36
81Mitchell8,94739.1%5.3%476
82Moore21,28439.1%5.3%1,132
83Morris11,99339.1%5.3%638
84San Jacinto27,66639.1%5.3%1,472
85Castro7,38138.9%5.3%391
86Edwards1,38038.9%5.3%73
87Jones19,75838.8%5.3%1,043
88Titus31,30138.8%5.3%1,653
89Val Verde47,69338.8%5.3%2,518
90Lamar50,14938.7%5.3%2,643
91Reagan3,30838.7%5.3%174
92Red River11,62738.7%5.3%613
93Scurry16,88338.6%5.3%886
94Sutton3,34538.6%5.3%176
95Waller57,46338.6%5.3%3,017
96Gray21,27238.5%5.2%1,115
97Lynn5,61938.5%5.2%294
98Navarro52,83438.5%5.2%2,769
99Kinney3,15738.4%5.2%165
100Real2,83038.4%5.2%148
101Polk50,53638.3%5.2%2,633
102Freestone19,59938.2%5.2%1,019
103Houston22,10738.2%5.2%1,150
104Howard34,48838.2%5.2%1,793
105Orange84,76138.2%5.2%4,408
106Yoakum7,63038.2%5.2%397
107Dickens1,57038.1%5.2%81
108Jackson15,01038.1%5.2%779
109Coryell82,92738.0%5.2%4,287
110Hardeman3,54138.0%5.2%183
111Jeff Davis1,99238.0%5.2%103
112Knox3,33338.0%5.2%172
113Madison13,55638.0%5.2%701
114Robertson16,91238.0%5.2%874
115Jack8,58837.9%5.2%443
116Kenedy11637.9%5.2%6
117Smith234,66737.9%5.2%12,109
118King21637.8%5.2%11
119Trinity13,73537.8%5.2%707
120Ward11,34737.8%5.2%584
121Concho3,23537.7%5.1%166
122Hopkins37,00837.7%5.1%1,899
123Crockett2,94937.6%5.1%151
124Kaufman149,77337.6%5.1%7,668
125Menard1,96437.6%5.1%101
126Victoria91,20937.6%5.1%4,670
127Austin30,40637.5%5.1%1,551
128DeWitt19,82637.5%5.1%1,011
129Kimble4,31637.5%5.1%220
130Panola22,54037.5%5.1%1,150
131Rusk52,75537.5%5.1%2,691
132Tom Green119,27637.5%5.1%6,083
133Winkler7,58237.5%5.1%387
134Hansford5,27037.4%5.1%268
135Parmer9,80937.4%5.1%499
136Childress6,78137.3%5.1%344
137Milam25,08037.3%5.1%1,274
138Upshur41,26137.3%5.1%2,096
139Wheeler4,98037.3%5.1%253
140Young17,90337.3%5.1%909
141Coleman7,80837.2%5.1%395
142Gregg124,24537.2%5.1%6,287
143Comanche13,65137.1%5.0%689
144Goliad7,09237.1%5.0%358
145Grimes29,44237.1%5.0%1,487
146Harris4,726,17737.1%5.0%238,672
147Lubbock311,50937.1%5.0%15,731
148Coke3,30537.0%5.0%167
149Delta5,27837.0%5.0%266
150Hill36,13837.0%5.0%1,821
151San Saba5,77937.0%5.0%291
152Stephens9,26037.0%5.0%467
153Washington35,80737.0%5.0%1,805
154Bowie92,74736.9%5.0%4,656
155Ellis195,50936.9%5.0%9,815
156Haskell5,40836.9%5.0%271
157Hunt101,59636.9%5.0%5,100
158Lipscomb3,03836.9%5.0%153
159Lavaca20,37936.8%5.0%1,021
160Colorado20,58236.7%5.0%1,029
161Llano21,63736.7%5.0%1,082
162McCulloch7,63836.7%5.0%382
163Stonewall1,33136.7%5.0%67
164Andrews18,36236.6%5.0%914
165Hamilton8,24436.6%5.0%411
166Baylor3,47536.5%5.0%173
167Gaines21,52336.5%5.0%1,070
168Aransas24,04836.4%5.0%1,190
169Hockley21,49536.4%5.0%1,064
170Leon15,92836.4%5.0%788
171Schleicher2,47436.4%5.0%122
172Throckmorton1,43936.3%4.9%71
173Cooke41,86036.2%4.9%2,064
174Eastland17,81236.2%4.9%878
175Wichita129,58436.2%4.9%6,388
176Bosque18,40436.1%4.9%904
177Fisher3,68036.1%4.9%181
178McLennan261,09036.1%4.9%12,820
179Runnels9,85836.1%4.9%484
180Callahan13,86936.0%4.9%680
181Cherokee50,82435.9%4.9%2,485
182Donley3,29835.9%4.9%161
183Van Zandt60,05335.9%4.9%2,937
184Brazoria374,60035.8%4.9%18,243
185Burleson17,95835.8%4.9%875
186Erath42,78835.8%4.9%2,084
187Midland169,39335.8%4.9%8,249
188Motley1,22335.8%4.9%60
189Sabine9,98035.8%4.9%486
190Dallas2,604,05335.7%4.9%126,557
191Sherman2,41435.7%4.9%117
192Taylor143,02935.7%4.9%6,951
193Henderson82,62735.6%4.8%4,007
194Martin5,22835.6%4.8%254
195Rains12,25735.6%4.8%594
196Franklin10,44535.5%4.8%504
197Bandera21,18235.4%4.8%1,021
198Burnet49,68435.4%4.8%2,395
199Nacogdoches64,76835.4%4.8%3,122
200Randall141,48935.4%4.8%6,820
201Hays245,35135.3%4.8%11,801
202Kerr52,81035.3%4.8%2,540
203Oldham2,17135.3%4.8%104
204Brown38,15935.2%4.8%1,828
205Hutchinson20,59535.2%4.8%987
206Calhoun20,12735.1%4.8%962
207Irion1,56135.0%4.8%74
208Montague20,19735.0%4.8%961
209Parker151,18835.0%4.8%7,197
210Wilson50,38134.9%4.8%2,393
211Clay10,29034.8%4.7%488
212Lampasas21,82934.8%4.7%1,035
213Wood45,34134.8%4.7%2,149
214Archer8,64934.7%4.7%408
215Chambers47,03734.6%4.7%2,215
216Comal165,20134.5%4.7%7,764
217El Paso863,83234.4%4.7%40,427
218Fayette24,56434.4%4.7%1,150
219Guadalupe173,82834.4%4.7%8,135
220Rockwall110,63134.4%4.7%5,178
221Blanco11,60834.3%4.7%542
222Hartley5,36934.3%4.7%251
223Mason3,95934.3%4.7%185
224Terrell86234.3%4.7%40
225Bexar2,014,05934.2%4.7%93,855
226Kendall45,37634.1%4.6%2,105
227Grayson137,00833.9%4.6%6,316
228Somervell9,33733.9%4.6%430
229Carson5,80133.8%4.6%267
230Galveston350,80133.8%4.6%16,137
231Roberts76433.8%4.6%35
232Shackelford3,13433.8%4.6%144
233Wise70,06233.8%4.6%3,223
234Gillespie26,95333.7%4.6%1,237
235Hardin56,57633.7%4.6%2,597
236Brewster9,45433.6%4.6%432
237Glasscock1,06833.6%4.6%49
238Mills4,50133.6%4.6%206
239Hood62,45933.4%4.5%2,842
240Armstrong1,91233.3%4.5%87
241Denton914,87033.2%4.5%41,352
242Hemphill3,37133.2%4.5%152
243Sterling1,39233.2%4.5%63
244Johnson182,69033.1%4.5%8,239
245Kent63533.1%4.5%29
246Tarrant2,113,85433.1%4.5%95,335
247Borden68633.0%4.5%31
248Brazos234,54832.8%4.5%10,461
249Williamson617,39632.1%4.4%26,980
250Collin1,079,15331.6%4.3%46,404
251Montgomery629,98931.4%4.3%26,901
252Travis1,289,05430.1%4.1%52,851
253Fort Bend832,60729.4%4.0%33,304
--Loving96N/AN/AN/A

How Texas fits the national picture

The KFF 2024 poll pegged national adult GLP-1 use at 5.7%. Applied to Texas's obesity profile, the model projects 4.9% of adults are on a GLP-1 medication. That matches the county-level obesity data from CDC PLACES (2023) more than any measured prescription count; the state's real share could be higher in urban areas with broad commercial coverage, or lower in rural regions where prescriber access is limited.

Compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide complicate the picture. After the FDA shortage resolution in late 2024 and early 2025, compounded supply dropped sharply. Brand-name utilization rose. The county numbers here don't separate brand vs. compounded, because no public dataset does yet.

Decision path

How should I use the Texas GLP-1 map?

This state view is a demand and access signal, not a prescription recommendation. Use it to understand where GLP-1 need may be concentrated, then pressure-test provider availability, insurance rules, and pharmacy quality before starting care.

State
Texas
Counties
254
Est. users
1,425,254
Avg adoption
4.9%

Step 1

Find county context

County estimates help separate broad statewide demand from the local access picture a patient actually experiences.

Review counties

Step 2

Check coverage and price

Texas access depends on payer policy, prior authorization, cash-pay pricing, and whether local clinicians can support follow-up.

Check coverage path

Step 3

Decide on care route

If local access is thin or pricing is unclear, a supervised telehealth assessment can clarify eligibility and next steps.

Compare provider options

Evidence standard

How this page was source-checked

Editorial policy

FormBlends does not claim an individual clinician byline unless a named reviewer is available. For this page, the editorial team checks medical and regulatory claims against primary sources, clinical trials, public datasets, and regulator guidance.

Frequently asked questions

How is GLP-1 adoption calculated for Texas counties?
We multiply each county's CDC PLACES 2023 adult obesity prevalence by a scaling factor k = 0.1361, which comes from the KFF 2024 figure of 5.7% national GLP-1 adoption divided by the 41.9% national adult obesity rate. That gives an estimated per-county adoption %. Multiply by Census ACS 5-year 2022 county population to get projected users. Texas shows 4.9% state-average adoption under this model.
Why is Texas's number 0.8 percentage points below the national average?
Adult obesity prevalence in Texas averages 35.8% (CDC BRFSS 2024, state-level). The national average is 41.9%. The model links adoption linearly to obesity, so states above the national obesity rate come out above the national adoption estimate, and vice versa. Real variation also depends on commercial insurance coverage and Medicaid GLP-1 policy, both of which differ significantly by state.
Do Medicaid enrollees in Texas get GLP-1 coverage?
Texas Medicaid covers some non-GLP-1 weight-loss medications, but excludes GLP-1s for obesity. According to KFF (2026-01-16), federal Medicaid rules require GLP-1 coverage for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and sleep apnea indications. Obesity coverage is optional and varies by state.
What studies back up GLP-1 weight loss expectations?
The STEP 1 trial (Wilding et al., NEJM, 2021) enrolled 1,961 adults on 2.4mg weekly semaglutide over 68 weeks and saw mean body weight change of negative 14.9% vs negative 2.4% on placebo. SURMOUNT-1 (Jastreboff et al., NEJM, 2022) tested tirzepatide in 2,539 adults over 72 weeks and saw negative 20.9% at 15mg weekly. Both were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled.
How often does the Texas county data refresh?
CDC PLACES releases annually in late summer. Census ACS 5-year estimates release every December. KFF reruns its GLP-1 utilization poll roughly twice a year. We re-run the full county model whenever any of those update, and the last-reviewed date at the top of every page reflects the most recent refresh.

Sources

Related reading

Original tools and data

Use the FormBlends research stack

These assets are built to be useful beyond a single article: shareable data pages, calculators, provider comparisons, and safety checks that give Google and readers something original to crawl.

Looking for GLP-1 care in Texas?

FormBlends ships compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide to Texas with licensed telehealth consultations.

Start your assessment

Estimated adoption figures are modeled projections from public data, not measured prescription counts. This page is general information, not medical advice. Individual results vary. Talk to a licensed healthcare provider before starting any medication.