Medicaid Coverage of Newborn Circumcision: A Health Parity Right of the Poor

Morris, Brian J.; Bailis, Stefan A.; Waskett, Jake H.; Wiswell, Thomas E.; Halperin, Daniel T.

doi:10.2105/ajph.2009.161281

Cited by 19 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regional differences of 75%–31% are from Hispanic births (Merrill et al, 2008). A reduction in reimbursement by public and private health insurance (Clark, Kilmarx, & Kretsinger, 2011; Leibowitz et al, 2009; Morris et al, 2009), and a decline in medical MC rate, could reverse the benefit experienced in the USA to date (Sullivan et al, 2007). In Australia, the decline in MC from high pre-1970s levels to only 27% in 16–19-year-olds currently (Ferris et al, 2010) should ring alarm bells (Cooper et al, 2010).…”

Section: Hiv Infection In Menmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These misrepresent credible research, and cite questionable websites, superseded publications, outlier studies, non-peer-reviewed book chapters and discredited paediatric policy statements (Schoen, Oehrli, Colby, & Machin, 2000; Morris, Bailis, Castellsague, Wiswell, & Halperin, 2006; Morris et al, 2012b). Opposition to infant medical MC in the USA (Green, McAllister, Peterson, & Travis, 2009) has seen Medicaid coverage decline, posing a danger to public health (Leibowitz, Desmond, & Belin, 2009; Morris, Bailis, Waskett, Wiswell, & Halperin, 2009). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review: A critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Hiv Infection In Menmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review: A critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The AAP policy states, “ The preventive and public health benefits associated with newborn male circumcision warrant third - party reimbursement of the procedure ” [4]. This reinforces calls for a re-evaluation of parental access and funding for elective circumcision of their minor male children in all states in Australia [6,56] and, in the USA, the 18 states that no longer provide coverage under Medicaid [52,53]. There are also significant implications for policies in other countries as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights

Bates¹,

Ziegler

Kennedy

et al. 2013

BMC Pediatr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRecent attempts in the USA and Europe to ban the circumcision of male children have been unsuccessful. Of current concern is a report by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (TLRI) recommending that non-therapeutic circumcision be prohibited, with parents and doctors risking criminal sanctions except where the parents have strong religious and ethnic ties to circumcision. The acceptance of this recommendation would create a precedent for legislation elsewhere in the world, thereby posing a threat to pediatric practice, parental responsibilities and freedoms, and public health.DiscussionThe TLRI report ignores the scientific consensus within medical literature about circumcision. It contains legal and ethical arguments that are seriously flawed. Dispassionate ethical arguments and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are consistent with parents being permitted to authorize circumcision for their male child. Uncritical acceptance of the TLRI report’s recommendations would strengthen and legitimize efforts to ban childhood male circumcision not just in Australia, but in other countries as well. The medical profession should be concerned about any attempt to criminalize a well-accepted and evidence-based medical procedure. The recommendations are illogical, pose potential dangers and seem unworkable in practice. There is no explanation of how the State could impose criminal charges against doctors and parents, nor of how such a punitive apparatus could be structured, nor how strength of ethnic or religious ties could be determined. The proposal could easily be used inappropriately, and discriminates against parents not tied to the religions specified. With time, religious exemptions could subsequently be overturned. The law, governments and the medical profession should reject the TLRI recommendations, especially since the recent affirmative infant male circumcision policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics attests to the significant individual and public health benefits and low risk of infant male circumcision.SummaryDoctors should be allowed to perform medical procedures based on sound evidence of effectiveness and safety with guaranteed protection. Parents should be free to act in the best interests of the health of their infant son by having him circumcised should they choose.

show abstract

“…Cost analyses showing that third party payments for circumcision will save medical insurance companies money over time should lead to support by third party payers and for Medicaid coverage 72 73. Circumcision and vaccination are each ‘elective procedure(s)’ .…”

Section: Are There ‘Logical Leaps’ In the Aap's Statement?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics,Svoboda and Van Howe commented on the 2012 changein the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) policy on newborn male circumcision, in which the AAP stated that benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks. Svoboda and Van Howe disagree with the AAP conclusions. We show here that their arguments against male circumcision are based on a poor understanding of epidemiology,erroneous interpretation of the evidence, selective citation of the literature, statistical manipulation of data, and circular reasoning. In reality, the scientific evidence indicates that male circumcision, especially when performed in the newborn period, is an ethically and medically sound low-risk preventive health procedure conferring a lifetime of benefits to health and well-being.Policies in support of parent-approved elective newborn circumcision should be embraced by the medical,scientific and wider communities.

show abstract

Medicaid Coverage of Newborn Circumcision: A Health Parity Right of the Poor

Cited by 19 publications

References 11 publications

Review: A critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries

Review: A critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries

Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights

Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About