Lack Of Circumcision Coverage In U.S. Medicaid Programs Could Increase HIV Transmission Risk, Researchers Say
Main Category: Medicare / Medicaid / SCHIPAlso Included In: HIV / AIDS; Sexual Health / STDs; Men's health
Article Date: 25 Feb 2009 - 3:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
2 (8 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
2 (4 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 1 posts |
Utah's Medicaid program does not cover routine circumcisions for infant boys, which could put men in the state at a higher risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, according to a recent study by researchers at the University of California-Los Angeles, the Salt Lake Tribune reports. The policy also could widen health disparities along socioeconomic lines, the researchers said. Utah officials in 2003 cut circumcision funding from the state's Medicaid program "because of the elective, non-therapeutic nature of the procedure rather than medical necessity," according to a Medicaid Information Bulletin published that year.
For the UCLA study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, researchers found that circumcision rates among infant boys were an average of 24 percentage points lower at hospitals in Utah and 15 other states where Medicaid does not cover the procedure. According to the researchers, this finding could be significant because studies conducted in Africa found that circumcision could reduce a man's risk of contracting HIV through heterosexual sex. In addition, HIV and STI transmission rates can be higher among low-income populations, therefore Utah's circumcision policy could create greater health disparities among children enrolled in public health programs, the researchers said. Arleen Leibowitz, an economics professor at UCLA and author of the study, said circumcision could be seen as analogous to vaccination. Leibowitz asked, "If you could save your child the trauma of all kinds of infectious diseases later in life for $350 or $300, wouldn't you think that's worthwhile?"
According to the researchers, circumcision rates in the U.S. have declined since the 1980s. The American Academy of Pediatrics estimates that 1.2 million newborns are circumcised annually, which costs between $150 million and $270 million. Although AAP traditionally has taken a neutral stance on the procedure -- recommending that "parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child" -- the group now is reconsidering its position in response to recent research. In addition, AAP in 2007 created a circumcision committee of 10 physicians to analyze data on the procedure. Douglas Diekema, pediatrics professor at the University of Washington, said the academy is "not there yet in terms of making a firm recommendation, or even having formulated tentative ones." He said researchers would need to determine whether the African studies have implications for risk reduction in the U.S., where HIV transmission is more likely to occur among men who have sex with men and injection drug users. Diekema said research on whether circumcision reduces HIV transmission among these groups is ambiguous. Although studies have demonstrated "more medical support for circumcision than there was 10 years ago," he said he is unsure whether the findings are "strong enough to make a firm recommendation that all children should be circumcised." In addition, although AAP's position on circumcision might become more nuanced, it should not determine insurance coverage, Diekema said. "Just because the academy makes a recommendation doesn't mean it shouldn't be paid for," he said.
However, opponents of circumcision argue that the procedure has unproven benefits and is invasive, risky and more painful than vaccination. Angela Chaudhari, assistant professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Utah School of Medicine, said she considers circumcision a traumatic procedure that is not supported by sufficient data. Chuck Norlin, pediatrics professor and chief of the Division of General Pediatrics at the University of Utah, said only about 25% of his patients decline to have their sons circumcised. He said the procedure can reduce a man's risk of contracting STIs and urinary tract infections; however, he added that safer sex practices can minimize these risks. "I try to present a balanced view of the data," Norlin said.
An abstract of the study is available online.
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
© 2009 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
Visit our medicare / medicaid / schip section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
16 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/140219.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/140219.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
Pure Crap, And This Is Why
posted by Tom Tobin on 25 Feb 2009 at 7:47 am"Arleen Leibowitz, an economics professor at UCLA and author of the study, said circumcision could be seen as analogous to vaccination. Leibowitz asked, "If you could save your child the trauma of all kinds of infectious diseases later in life for $350 or $300, wouldn't you think that's worthwhile?""
First, these junk studies which have uncontrolled are reporting invalid information. There are as many studies which show that men with foreskins are less likely to contract HPV than circumcised men, as there are studies which show an increased rate of HPV infection. There is a vaccine for HPV, anyway. Why lose the two most erotic parts of a man, the frenulum and inner foreskin, when you don't have to? The African studies which purport to show increased protection against HIV did not take into account the large numbers of circumcised men who vanished, and never finished. Why is it that American men, who are mostly circumcised, have a higher rate of HIV infection than their uncircumcised European counterparts.
Arleen is confusing something. There is no medical group which recommends circumcision, for medical purposes. There is no disease which intact men get, which circumcised men don't get. They get them at about the same percentages.
If you have to wear a condom to be safe, why give up 2/3 or more of your sexual sensation to do it? It makes no sense performing cosmetic surgery on an infant. If a girl's family had a tendency toward breast cancer, you wouldn't remove her breasts at birth. Why is it OK to rob a boy?
Circumcision, when you evaluate the entire picture (which the US medical system never does, because it brings in $250 million+ a year in revenue), causes more problems than it cures, from meatal stenosis, to skin bridges, to lack of feeling in the penis, hidden penis, MRSA infections, excessive bleeding, and death. A foreskin brings none of these problems. Ladies, how much trouble has your clitoral foreskin caused you? It's made of the same tissues as a man's foreskin. Why does 80-85% of the world have no problem with a foreskin, but it is a health crisis in the US and Africa? Why are foreskins not in our anatomy and physiology textbooks, like they are not a real part of a human body?
Even with properly administered anaesthesia (which rarely happens), soon the kid will be splashing the wound with salty urine. Tearing the foreskin from its attachment to the head at birth has got to be unbelievably painful.
Is the motto "pain now, for possible prevention in the future"? What happened to "first, do no harm"?
I have heard the screams of a kid being circumcised, and thought he was being murdered. It make the hair on my neck stand up, 35 years later. If you don't believe me, try listening to a few circumcision videos on the net, with the sound up. Arleen, if you are listening, it's a mistake.
To everyone else, who keeps publishing this false, mistaken article all over the US, please consider that it might be wrong, and do your own research and thinking. Numbers and emotions can be twisted to represent anything, and this article seems to have taken on a life of its own, beyond logic and reason.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




