Lack of Circumcision May Cost Billions
By: Charlotte Ames
Updated: August 20, 2012
Fewer baby boys are being circumcised and that could have a big effect on health care costs. A team of disease experts and health economists warns that declining circumcision rates could add more than $4 billion dollars in medical costs.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University say the expense stems from new cases and higher rates of sexually transmitted infections and related cancers in uncircumcised men and their female partners. Diseases linked to lower rates of male circumcision include HIV/AIDS, herpes and genital warts, and cervical and penile cancers.
About 55% of the males born each year in this country are circumcised, a decline from 79% in the 1970s and 1980s. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend routine circumcision and in 18 states, not including Pennsylvania, Medicaid won't pay for it.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University say the expense stems from new cases and higher rates of sexually transmitted infections and related cancers in uncircumcised men and their female partners. Diseases linked to lower rates of male circumcision include HIV/AIDS, herpes and genital warts, and cervical and penile cancers.
About 55% of the males born each year in this country are circumcised, a decline from 79% in the 1970s and 1980s. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend routine circumcision and in 18 states, not including Pennsylvania, Medicaid won't pay for it.
Comments
I remember seeing announcements from the AMA decades ago that outside of religious reasons there was no reason to circumcise boys. That it was Not a health issue and that people should refrain from this "useless' procedure except for religious reasons. For many years boys were routinely circumcised in the US for "health" reasons before this was published.
Douglas S.
August 21, 2012 at 11:56 am
Yes, cutting off body parts is definitely the way to go here. We should force circumcision at the hospital! Why would these babies need a part of their bodies (that serve a purpose) they were born with? We should probably start circumcising female babies as well. Billions are spent on female yeast infections and UTI's. While we're at it, we should also start doing mastectomies on girls (before breast cancer can have the chance to develop), as well as forced hysterectomies after 30. High risk pregnancies cost TONS of money. It would stop the billions wasted on ovarian and cervical cancers as well.
Maby M.
August 21, 2012 at 11:36 am
More misinformation by people trying to defend cutting parts off babies' genitals. Despite almost no-one in Europe except for Jewish and Muslim families circumcising, Europe has lower rates of HIV.
Even in Africa (from a USAID report):
"There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence%u2014in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."
It is unclear if circumcised men are more likely to infect women. The only ever randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised.
Women have "skin folds" too, but we don't cut parts off baby girls. Think how much money we could save by removing their breast buds too (breast cancer affects about 12% of women, and kills about 3%).
Mark L.
August 20, 2012 at 6:30 pm
