SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Medicaid policymakers intend to readdress inclusion of circumcision following Monday's endorsement of the procedure by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
State lawmakers nixed the procedure from the Medicaid formulary in 2003, as removal of a male infant's penile foreskin was then seen as elective and therefore cosmetic surgery. The state stood to save more than $350,000 annually by eliminating the procedure.
The academy now states, with further evaluation, "the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks," and such benefits "justify access to this procedure for families who choose it."
The issue will definitely "make its way onto their agenda," Utah Department of Health spokesman Tom Hudachko said regarding the state's Medicaid Policy Committee. Any recommendation to change current policy would have to pass the Legislature and receive a funding nod from the state's top lawmakers.
"The new report will certainly generate that discussion," Hudachko said, adding that officials will carefully review the presumed benefits and costs of circumcision before making a recommendation.
Hudachko said eliminating all but necessary procedures saved about $470,000 per year.
The circumcision rate dropped significantly in the year following the legislative move, from 60.3 percent to 52 percent statewide, according to inpatient hospital discharge data compiled by the state health department.
According to a 2010 Medicaid report, circumcision is one of the most common procedures submitted for prior authorization. That year, the statewide rate of circumcisions was 38.8 percent, Utah's lowest reported rate.
The rates are under-reported, Hudachko said, adding that numbers only include inpatient hospital procedures. Some infants are circumcised at various pediatric clinics within their first weeks of life.
READ MORE HERE:
What are your thoughts? Should tax payers pay for this?
Answer by robinkane at 11:20 AM on Aug. 28, 2012
I miss the downvote at the moment. My son's are MY children and I will make their decision until they are old enough to do so. A woman can choose to abort a child (beating heart and all) but cannot choose whether to cut their skin or not? BS. I do not have a strong opinion on circumcision either way, I have one child that is and one that is not, neither have problems.
Answer by amazinggrace83 at 11:53 AM on Aug. 28, 2012
We should pay for abortion but not circumcision which CAN be medically necessary? This is stupid and yet another decision that the government has no part in mandating, (for or against). Medicaid is medical insurance and should cover standard medical procedures, circumcision is a standard procedure.
Answer by amazinggrace83 at 11:21 AM on Aug. 28, 2012
Answer by winterglow at 11:52 AM on Aug. 28, 2012
Answer by momto2boys973 at 9:36 PM on Aug. 28, 2012
Answer by bandgeek521 at 11:24 AM on Aug. 28, 2012
Answer by butterflyblue19 at 11:27 AM on Aug. 28, 2012
Answer by Anonymous at 11:29 AM on Aug. 28, 2012
Answer by winterglow at 11:50 AM on Aug. 28, 2012
Answer by maecntpntz219 at 12:23 PM on Aug. 28, 2012
Recently Bumped in Debate
Do you feel it's better to have "Faith" than no faith at all?