Whew, this article was a real eye-opener. I didn't know we had anti-venom shortages, my assumption being that you can go to a hospital after a bite in time you'll be easily cured.
Just last week a family friend was bitten by a huge copperhead and was in real bad shape. My mother, a nurse for 40 years and the director of protocols for a string of hospitals in southwest Missouri, took him to the hospital for care. They were very hesitant to give him the anti-venom, but after about 20 hours and a move to the ICU, they gave him the ONLY dose they had at the hospital. He's a big burly bastard, and they decided he needed another dose. They had to put him in an ambulance and take him an hour to the next hospital to get another dose.
My mother, after seeing everything first hand, launched into a review of their snake-bite procedures. She came to find out after speaking with the head pharmacist, that the anti-venom our friend needed was $64,000 - and they have a short shelf life! This was the reasoning for only having one dose at the hospital they went to.
Our friend is fine, and has a good story to tell. My mother called a 'meeting of the minds' for the hospitals she oversees to try to find a solution.
All that to say, yes, there are indeed problems with anti-venom!
The second hospital was a larger hospital in Springfield. The doctors at the first recommended they move him instead of the anti-venom because they said the docs at the larger hospital were more experienced in snakebites, and he was plenty stable. However, according to my mom, their procedures weren't any better.
whereas in reality, "The cost of ... antivenom is $2000 – $3000 per bottle" [1] and you should hope that your health insurance covers it. I've heard of anti-venom which is more like $10k per bottle, but can't find a link.
oh, and you'll hope that there's a location in-state, otherwise you're going to rely on the fastest courier to get one to you, once you've been approved.
> you should hope that your health insurance covers it.
I don't think that the choice between thousands of dollars of debt and death is a hard one to make... Even in this case where without the anti-venom you could 'wait out' the venom on breathing apparatus, it will cost your $100K+ (according to the article). You don't really have many choices. It basically comes down to: death or debt. I know which one I choose.
That leads into a whole other debate. Death vs. Debt is straightforward when you're 30 or 40 and looking at $100k to cure a snakebite. It's an entirely different issue when you're 70 and looking at a $2m cancer treatment, the only problem is then you know that your debt will be payed for by the government.
> Death vs. Debt is straightforward when you're 30 or 40 and looking at $100k to cure a snakebite. It's an entirely different issue when you're 70 and looking at a $2m cancer treatment, the only problem is then you know that your debt will be payed for by the government.
That may be, but this entire discussion is around snakebites and anti-venom which is a lot different than a (possibly) terminal condition like cancer. You're completely changing the frame of reference when you compare 2 different types of health issue and two different age brackets at the same time...
Good point but even if the 70y.o. had a snakebite that would cost $100k to cure it's still a debate. My point wasn't that you shouldn't go into debt to cure a snakebite. I was just trying to show that your point was over-simplified and is a debate not a given.
