Financial incentive: Difference between revisions

'''Financial incentive''' in the United States to perform medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] is very large. Non-therapeutic circumcision is a multi-billion dollar industry. Profit is reaped not only from the practice of circumcision itself, and associated hospital charges, but also from the sale of harvested foreskins, the sale of products derived from harvested foreskins, the sale of circumcision specific tools and utensils, and the treatment of oomplications and botched circumcisions.

Mansfield ''et al''. (1995) reported there are no medical indications for non-therapeutic infant circumcision.<ref name="mansfield1995">{{REFjournal

1.2 million baby boys are circumcised a year in the United States alone. At a dollar per procedure, that is already $1,200,000 a year. The going rate for a circumcision procedure is approximately $1,700 when hospital charges are included, multiplied by 1.2 million, that is approximately $2,040,000,000 a year that circumcision brings in based on the procedure alone.

When a baby boy is to be circumcised, mother and baby remain in hospital for about one-fourth of a day longer,<ref name="mansfield1995" /> so that increases the profit to the hospital.

  |author-link=

  |publisher=

  |accessdate=2019-10-23

  |quote=As they saying goes, follow the money. Now you know why neither the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]], American Medical Association, [[American Academy of Family Physicians]], or the [[American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists| American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] haven’t condemned this unnecessary surgery, and why their physician members are quick to recommend the procedure to expectant parents.

The now expired and  discredited AAP 2012 ''Circumcision Policy Statement'' stated that "Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine (i.e. non-therapeutic) circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to '''warrant third-party payment''' for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner." and "The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement."<ref>{{REFweb

Although the foreskin has [[Immunological and protective function of the foreskin| immunological and protective functions]], Government medical insurance in the United States still holds the notion, which originated in the late 19th century, that the [[foreskin]] is a cesspool of disease, and circumcision improves hygiene and prevents sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), therefore it is best cut off and insurance should pay for it without any proof of medical indication or necessity, so there are no effective controls in force to see that only medically necessary services are covered.<ref name="hodges1997">{{REFbook

  |first=Frederick

}}</ref> This view is not supported by current medical evidence.

The medical expenses of many births are borne by Medicaid. The percentage of births covered by Medicaid varies by state. It ranges from a low of 20 percent in Vermont to 71 percent in New Mexico.<ref>{{REFweb

}}</ref> Circumcision is frequently included as part of the birth package of covered expenses, so third-party payment is provided.

The [https://www.ihs.gov/ Indian Health Service] provides non-therapeutic circumcision to native Americans, even though circumcision is not part of the culture of native Americans.

There are about 2 million United States government employees in the United States whose health insurance covers non-therapeutic circumcision.

The [https://www.medicare.gov/ United States Medicare Program] provides health insurance for persons who have reached the age of 65 years. It assumes that any man with a [[foreskin]] needs a [[circumcision]]. It does not require proof of medical necessity to provide third-party payment.

Industries that depend on the practice of circumcision, particularly infant circumcision include makers of the [[circumstraint]] (the board to which a baby is strapped down to for the procedure), makers of circumcision clamps, manufacturers of circumcision kits, and other utensils used for circumcision.

Foreskins are sold to pharmaceutical companies for stem-cell research, the creation of synthetic skin, and the creation of consumer products. Since the 1980s, private hospitals have been involved in the business of supplying discarded foreskins to private bio-research laboratories and pharmaceutical companies who require human flesh as raw research material.<ref name="hodges1997" /> They also supply foreskins to transnational corporations. Dr. Tania Phillips, professor of dermatology at [http://www.bumc.bu.edu/ Boston University School of Medicine], insisting foreskin gathering and cultivating is scientifically and technologically "very promising." <ref>Ronald Rosenberg. 19 October 1992: 22-23.</ref>

* BioSurface Technology<ref>Companies see $1.5b market in replacement skin products. Rosenberg R. ''Boston Globe'' (October 19, 1992): 22-23.</ref>

There are pro-circumcision interest groups that give grants to doctors and researchers to "study" and promote circumcision. Organizations that do this include the [[Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation]]. In 2009, [[Schusterman Family Foundation]] gave a grant to mohel and professional infant circumcisor [[Neil Pollock]] to promote infant circumcision in Rwanda,<ref name='marketwire 2009-02-24'>{{REFnews

}}</ref> particularly the [[Mogen]] technique, in the name of HIV prevention.

 

[[Category:Motives]]