How does a country with limited health resources decide what to prioritise? And where do antivenom and emergency care fit into those choices?
These questions sit at the heart of public health policy in Nigeria, a country grappling with multiple health burdens under limited fiscal space. In recent days, public attention has been drawn to the reported death of a young lady in Abuja, Ifunanya Lucy Nwangene, who died following complications from a snakebite. Her death has sparked widespread debate about the availability of antivenom in Nigerian health facilities and whether primary health centres are adequately equipped to respond to such emergencies. Beyond the personal tragedy, it exposes deeper challenges in allocating scarce health resources.
In health economics, one of the most useful tools for analysing resource allocation is the concept of opportunity cost. The value of the best alternative foregone when a choice is made. Every naira spent on a health intervention means that same naira cannot be spent elsewhere. When budgets are tight, governments must make difficult trade-offs between competing needs: vaccines or drugs, clinics or equipment, maternal health or emergency services.
In health economics, this dilemma is captured by the concept of opportunity cost. The value of the next best alternative is foregone when a choice is made. Every naira spent on one intervention cannot be spent elsewhere. In Nigeria, where budgets are tight and health needs are numerous, these trade-offs are unavoidable.
Snakebite envenoming is recognised by the World Health Organisation as a neglected tropical disease. Globally, it kills between 81,000 and 138,000 people every year, leaving hundreds of thousands more permanently disabled. In Nigeria, the Toxinological Society of Nigeria estimates around 43,000 snakebite cases annually, resulting in approximately 1,900 deaths, mostly among rural farmers, women, and children. Most of these deaths are preventable with timely access to antivenom.
Despite antivenom being classified as an essential medicine, access in Nigeria is uneven. There are indications that healthcare workers encounter difficulties with the supply, storage, and administration of antivenom. Antivenom is often stocked only in tertiary hospitals rather than primary health centres, which can contribute to delays in care.
From a health economics perspective, the issue is how resources are allocated. The focus is on whether those limited resources are being used in ways that deliver the greatest possible health benefit. Deprioritising antivenom may appear rational in a tight budget, but the hidden costs are high. People who could have survived would die. Others may live with long‑term disability. Communities lose productivity and catastrophic health expenditures for families forced to pay for repeated or delayed treatment
Economic analyses conducted in Nigeria and similar low-income settings suggest that antivenom provision is highly cost-effective. According to a 2017 study published in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, expanding access to antivenom in Nigeria could prevent deaths at a cost of about US$2,330 per life saved, and around US$100 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. In plain terms, a relatively modest investment in antivenom can prevent deaths and serious disabilities, making it one of the most effective ways to use scarce health funds.
Antivenom is not just a standalone intervention; it is part of emergency preparedness, which includes trauma care and obstetric emergencies. They benefit society broadly and require deliberate public investment. Nigeria can improve outcomes by establishing regional antivenom hubs in high-incidence areas. Training frontline health workers in emergency protocols. Ensuring reliable supply chains and strengthening data collection on snakebite incidence, treatment delays, and outcomes to inform policy decisions.
The death of Ifunanya shows how gaps in emergency care can have heartbreaking consequences. In situations like hers, every minute matters and delays, whether in reaching help, receiving the right treatment, or navigating the system. All of these have a great impact on the outcome. Opportunity cost becomes painfully real when time is lost, lives are cut short, families are left heartbroken and communities feel the impact. As Nigeria considers its health priorities, the question is not simply about allocating resources, but about what it means when lifesaving care doesn’t arrive fast enough. When preventable deaths happen because time runs out, the effects echo far beyond the individual, touching the wider society and economy.
Failing to plan is costly. Timely investment in antivenom and emergency readiness is not only smart economics. It is a moral imperative.
About:
Adesola Oyawoye is a health communicator and public health professional with experience in developing and implementing health strategies for government and international development programmes in Nigeria.
