Steadily declining rates of U.S. infant male circumcision could add more than $4.4 billion in avoidable health care costs, if rates over the next decade drop to levels now seen in Europe.
The expense stems from new cases and higher rates of sexually transmitted infections and related cancers among uncircumcised men and their female partners. The study is believed to be the first cost analysis to account for increased rates of multiple infectious diseases associated with lower rates of male circumcision, including HIV/AIDS, herpes and genital warts, as well as cervical and penile cancers. Previous research focused mostly on HIV, the single most costly disease whose risk of infection is decreased by male circumcision, a procedure that removes foreskin at the tip of the penis, hindering the buildup of bacteria and viruses in the penis’ skin folds.
Roughly 55 percent of the 2 million males born each year in the United States are circumcised, a decline from a high of 79 percent in the 1970s and ’80s. Rates in Europe average only 10 percent, and in Denmark, only 1.6 percent of infant males undergo the procedure.
Their economic evidence is backing up what their medical evidence has already shown to be perfectly clear. There are health benefits to infant male circumcision in guarding against illness and disease, and declining male circumcision rates come at a severe price, not just in human suffering, but in billions of health care dollars as well.
The 20-year decline in the number of American males circumcised at birth has already cost the nation upwards of $2 billion (estimate).
On an average, each male circumcision passed over and not performed leads to $313 more in illness-related expenses. These costs would not have been incurred if these men had undergone the procedure.
State funding cuts in Medicaid, the government medical assistance program for the poor, have substantially reduced numbers of U.S. infant male circumcisions, noting that 18 states have stopped paying for the procedure. The financial and health consequences of these decisions are becoming worse over time, especially if more states continue on this ill-fated path. State governments need to start recognising the medical benefits as well as the cost savings from providing insurance coverage for infant male circumcision..
The researchers constructed a novel economic model to predict the cost implications of not circumcising a male newborn. Included in their forecasting was information from multiple studies and databases that closely tracked the number of overall infections for each sexually transmitted disease, as well as the numbers of new people infected. Costs were conservatively limited to direct costs for drug treatment, physician visits and hospital care, and did not include indirect costs from work absences and medical travel expenses.
Comments are closed.