President Muhammadu Buhari has no doubt stoked the ire of Nigerians with his recent medical trip abroad. Just when Nigerians were beginning to look up to him to chart a different course from his predecessors, in line with the change slogan that propelled him to office, the President chose to tell them that not much has changed between the present and the past – except perhaps the fact that he has chosen to come clean about his trip, while, in the past, it would have been shrouded in secrecy.
According to his media aide, Femi Adesina, the President was taking a 10-day break away from work, during which time he would see some Ear, Nose and Throat specialists in London for a further evaluation of a niggling ear infection. The infection, Adesina explained, had already been treated in Nigeria, but required further “evaluation purely as a precaution.” Ordinarily, there should not be any reason to lose sleep over that, if not for the stance of the administration concerning medical treatment abroad.
Buhari’s trip is coming at a time when he has warned that the government would no longer bear the cost of the medical treatment of public officials abroad, especially for ailments that can be handled locally. Speaking at a Nigerian Medical Association function in Sokoto in April, the President, who was represented by the Minister of Health, Isaac Adewole, reportedly said, “… we will certainly not encourage expending Nigerian hard-earned resources on any government official seeking medical care abroad, when such can be handled in Nigeria.”
However, there are many Nigerians, including medical doctors, who are of the view that the country has sufficient ENT experts that could have treated the President without the need for the referral. In fact, a former National President of the NMA, Osahon Enabulele, who described the London trip as a “tragic blot on Nigeria’s collective professional and national image,” argued that Nigeria had over 250 ENT specialists, including professors that could adequately handle the President’s condition.
The reason many people embark on medical tourism, as the quest for medical treatment abroad is usually called, is lack of confidence in the quality of services available at home, both in terms of facilities and the manpower. For this reason, even when the treatment could be conveniently provided at home, people still prefer to go abroad, if they can afford the cost. The President’s action further damages the confidence of people who might still have a little bit of trust in the quality of medical services available in the country. That was exactly what the then vice-president, Atiku Abubakar, did nine years ago, when he flew abroad after suffering an ankle dislocation.
However, if it is indeed true that the doctors in Nigeria cannot handle an ordinary ear infection, it then calls into question the quality of medical care available in the country. What happens to the millions of other Nigerians that cannot afford to pay so much to access treatment abroad? Do they not have a right to good medical care? What is the government doing to upgrade the various teaching hospitals and medical centres of excellence that once boasted very competitive health care services and competent specialists? Why is it that even the State House Clinic is not well equipped enough to treat an ear infection? Is it because there is so much money at the disposal of the President to embark on foreign trips? Who is picking the bill?
The economic reality facing the country today demands stringent management by the government of its scarce resources. This includes a review of policies that are hurting the economy as a result of medical tourism. It is believed that Nigerians spend as much as $1 billion to seek medical treatment abroad, according to estimates by Enabulele. This amount, if ploughed into the health sector, could help to raise the standard of health facilities in the country. It could also help in stemming capital flight and brain drain, two of the many ills plaguing the health sector.
When it comes to restoring confidence in the health sector, the actions of political office holders, especially the President, matter a lot. When the former president of Ghana, Jerry Rawlings, wanted to inspire confidence in the local textile industry in his country, he started wearing the local fabric known as the Ghanaian smock or Batakari. Not long after, the smock became nationally recognised. Right now, it is the official Friday wear in the country, which has led to increased patronage and helped in job creation. Such is the impact that a leader can make in rekindling interest in local products.
Similarly, if the President can insist on patronising Nigerian hospitals, it will not only boost confidence in our hospitals, it will encourage Nigerian professionals, most of whom have relocated to Britain, the United States and South Africa, among other places, to return home. It will also lead to massive investment in health sector infrastructure by the governors, once they realise that their own health is dependent on the quality of services that can be provided at the local hospitals. Who knows, Nigeria could also, in no time, become a destination for medical tourism, at least from the West African sub-region. To this extent, Buhari’s trip was a terrible letdown.
