Medicaid Circumcision Coverage Harms Poor
The International Coalition for Genital Integrity (ICGI) calls on all state Medicaid programs still covering newborn circumcision to cease that coverage so the funds can be diverted to healing children; this follows a letter published today in the American Journal of Public Health that raised significant new concerns about this unnecessary;and often harmful;surgery.
West Lafayette, IN (PRWEB) March 12, 2009 -- The International Coalition for Genital Integrity (ICGI) calls on all state Medicaid programs still covering newborn circumcision to cease that coverage so the funds can be diverted to healing children; this follows a letter published yesterday in the American Journal of Public Health that raised significant new concerns about this unnecessary—and often harmful—surgery.
"Newborn circumcision places infants at immediate risk of bleeding, infection, MRSA, permanent loss of the foreskin's benefits, penile damage, and in rare cases, death," explains John W. Travis, M.D., M.P.H., and co-author of the letter. "It is harmful and unethical to place infants at immediate risk for these complications just to possibly reduce risk of adult acquired sexually transmitted diseases, especially when other prevention methods exist and are superior."
ICGI Director, Dan Bollinger adds, "Given the current economic crisis, the spiraling health care costs in the United States, and the large number of people in this nation who lack basic health care, it is unjustifiable to waste taxpayer money on a million unnecessary surgeries each year. Medicaid coverage of circumcision misleads parents into assuming that circumcision is advisable, like vaccinations. Medicaid parents know that Medicaid only funds medically necessary procedures. We have heard from a number of Medicaid covered parents who circumcised their son because they though it was required, only to learn later that it was unnecessary. Parents are not being fully informed that circumcision is elective. They are often only told to sign the forms. If they don't sign the first time, they are repeatedly asked until they do. This is an ethically questionable and perhaps fraudulent practice. Elimination of coverage is the surest way to ensure that parents know circumcision is not necessary."
Decision-makers often assume that circumcision is somehow beneficial to boys (and detrimental to girls). This fallacy is based on a hundred years of circumcision being promoted as a "cure-all." The letter clarified this mistake: "Although there is no evidence that boys not circumcised at birth are any less healthy than those who are circumcised, there is evidence of the opposite." This fact holds true whether the boy is born into a poor family, or a wealthy one. However, wealthy families have access to better healthcare, which includes being better informed of circumcision's risks. And, most physicians do not circumcise their sons.
Circumcision is a multi-million dollar "add-on sale." An ICGI national Medicaid survey revealed that more circumcisions are performed in states that pay more for circumcision.
Sixteen state Medicaid programs and numerous private insurance providers have recognized that medically unnecessary circumcisions should not be covered.