Declining rates in infant circumcision in the U.S. could add more than $4.4 billion in avoidable health costs for sexually transmitted infections, a new study suggests.

The decreasing rates are partly due to gaps in insurance coverage meaning that poorer families are choosing not to circumcise their sons because of costs.

In as many as 18 U.S. states, the Medicaid health program has reduced funding for the procedure, according to Dr. Aaron Tobian from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

The rates of infant male circumcisions has dropped from 79 per cent in the 1970s to approximately 55 per cent today – a decline that has already cost the nation $2 billion, said researchers.

Tobian’s team calculated the future implications for U.S. health costs if that trend continues, and the results were published on Monday in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

Declining: Decreasing rates in infant circumcision in the U.S. could add more than $4.4 billion in avoidable health costs for sexually transmitted infections; the rate of infant male circumcision is approximately 55 per cent

More than half of U.S. baby boys are circumcised today, but Tobian’s team says that number could drop to as few as one in ten, in line with rates of circumcision in Europe, where the procedure is rarely covered by insurance.

Using a model based on studies of the long-term health effects of circumcision, they predicted that such a decline would lead to more than double the rate of urinary tract infections in male babies and a 12 percent increase in the rate of HIV infections in men.

‘The state governments think we can save a few bucks, but it ends up costing them more in the long run,’ Tobian said. ‘The medical benefits of male circumcision are extremely clear,’ he added, referring to reduced rates of HIV, penile cancer and herpes.

Each circumcision costs Medicaid or private insurers about $250 to $300, Tobian said. His team estimated that each ‘forgone’ circumcision would add a net $313 in costs for extra doctor’s appointments, medication and other treatment for men who would contract human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or human papillomavirus (HPV) as a result of being uncircumcised.

With a drop from the current circumcision rate of about 55 percent of baby boys to 10 percent, there would be almost 5,000 extra HIV cases in men, 57,000 extra HPV infections and another 27,000 newborn UTIs among about four million babies, they calculated.

Related costs would add up to more than $4.4 billion for babies born over a decade-long span, they said.

Most of the data for the new model on health consequences came from research done in Africa. But it’s reasonable to assume those findings would apply to U.S. men, according to Helen Weiss, an epidemiologist who has studied circumcision at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

The foreskin is rich in HIV target cells, she told Reuters Health. Therefore a man without foreskin is less likely to contract HIV and some other sexually transmitted infections.

It’s not clear whether circumcised men are also less likely to pass on the diseases to a partner if they are infected, said Weiss, who wasn’t involved in the new study.

‘But obviously at the population level, women are less likely to acquire it if there’s less HIV in the male population,’ she added.

Less transmission of HPV also means women are at lower risk of cervical cancer, which is closely tied to the virus.

Weiss agreed that male newborn circumcision is ‘a very cost-effective intervention.’ It typically hasn’t been popular in the UK and the rest of Europe outside of Muslim and Jewish families who circumcise their sons for religious reasons, she added.

She said evidence from the past five years especially supports the long-term health benefits of circumcision – which itself comes with a very low risk of infection in newborns.

‘We seem to be finding more and more things that circumcision protects against,’ Weiss said. ‘If anything, you would expect (insurance) coverage of circumcision to be also increasing.’

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ most recent statement on the issue, reaffirmed in 2005, said there is not enough evidence to recommend routine male newborn circumcision. A new draft of that statement is set to be published next week.

There are also ethical questions about whether it’s okay to perform circumcision on a newborn boy who is obviously too young to consent, researchers noted.

But as boys get older, the procedure becomes more complicated and expensive.

In Germany, a district court banned the practice for young boys, but said older consenting males could have the procedure, sparking an outcry among Muslim and Jewish groups.

The country’s parliament later upheld the right to religious circumcision.

Source: The Daily Mail


  1. If hashem told us to do it, its for our good and once again medicine proves that it is for our good.

    A Jew does not belong in Germany anyways, get out of that blood-soaked country and let them be Yuden-rein.

    • Most boys in the US are circumcised and as they move into jnuior high and high school, they shower together. Some boys feel strongly about wanting to fit in and therefore like being circumcised. This may have been true for our generation, when circumcision was routine, but I’m sure if you fact checked you would find that it’s close to 50/50 now. So no, most’ boys are not circumcised now a days. As for the fitting in, if another boy is making fun of my son for being intact, I’m sure my boy (& the others) will wonder why he is looking at their penis’. Who won’t fit in then? Honestly, i don’t understand what the debate about circumcision is, we don’t cut off any other healthy body parts, even ones that may one day cause medical issues, why do we cut off foreskin?Where does it end? Some studies show that circumcision reduces the risk of urinary tract infections, perhaps meningitis and it lowers the risk of penile cancer. Studies show that having an appendectomy will lower the risk of appendicitis, let’s start doing that at birth too!And tonsils, what about that? They get infected, probably better to cut those out. I bet it will be easier at birth, going by your logic!Cutting of viable, healthy body parts to prevent medical issues that may’ arise sounds silly when you look at it that way. Why would foreskin be different?Did you know that 100% of botched circumcisions are preventable by not circumcising!!? I often leave the decision about circumcision of sons to the father. Many fathers have strong opinions and I feel that it is important to honor those decisions. Funny, i feel that we should leave important choices about someone’s body up to the person that owns the body, not someone else. Their body, THEIR choice.Little boys are born PERFECT, leave them that way!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here