No.
Most medical insurance company's are unlikely to cover circumcision unless there is a medical reason for it. There are very few instances where there is a health requirement for the circumcision of an infant for example. and unless you are covered for cosmetic surgery the answer is likely to be no.
Considering that infant circumcision is no longer considered a medically necessary procedure and is in fact more likely to be harmful then not, leads most most insurance companies to not cover it. Answer The best thing to do is to check with your insurance company. Not sure it is one of those excluded procedures.
No .normally circumcision is the removal of healthy tissue from the penis and as such is not a necessary procedure, on the contrary it is harmful. However if it is a medical necessity then chances are it would be covered.
Yes and no. Circumcision is done for health and religious reasons, but it could be considered mutilation if it's not done properly or if is not medically indicated or required by one's religion. Circumcision is sometimes but rarely medically indicated, and it is almost never medically indicated for newborns. There is no immediate medical justification for routine circumcision; that's why medical plans do not cover it. Always get opinions from physicians when it comes to medical procedures.
Normally no. It will not pay for infant circumcision as that is not a necessary medical procedure. It will not pay for any circumcision done for cosmetic reasons. However, Medicaid will cover circumcision when it is medically necessary, for example when an adult male has phimosis, a chronic constriction of the foreskin that prevents normal functioning of the penis.
No.
No.
No.
No, it's not.
To be completely honest, insurance companies that don't cover circumcisions don't make that choice for altruistic or idealistic reasons. They do it because it is financially cheaper for them to not do the circumcision. Though circumcision does decrease rates of certain medical conditions, and the treatments for these conditions are often more expensive than an infant circumcision. The insurance company gambles that they will not have to pay out. Many men don't develop serious conditions that need treatment, and those that do, are unlikely to still be covered by the same insurance company as an adult when these conditions occur. Medical insurance companies would find it in their interest not to encourage circumcision. In the first place they would be out of pocket paying to have the child done and after that there are many added risks of problems resulting from the circumcision. Both children and men who remain intact have far fewer problems involving the penis and the performance of same in latter life, it is in their interest to encourage this situation. problems related to the foreskin are very rare and nearly all that develop are easily taken care of without the need for the amputation of the whole thing There is no medical reasoning that calls for the removal of the healthy foreskin and the reasoning that it may avoid problems in the future is akin to the reasoning that amputating the feet cures smelly shoes. There is sound reasoning behind avoiding the procedure on account of the physical and psychological damage that may occur. In any case insurance company's don't gamble they carefully work out their odds and hedge what we would call a bet. It wont be long until circumcision has already become a mater of litigation in parts of the developed world. I doubt that the insurance want to become embroiled in a child sex mutilation situation. these cases are already beginning to pop up in courts. I would personally take them to the cleaners if they were complicit in the mutilation of my penis, luckily I still have it.
Don't take this as definitive information; you must contact Medicaid in Florida for the absolute accurate information. But in general, medical plans do not cover routine circumcision. This is because medical plan administrators understand that routine circumcision is elective and cosmetic in nature. It is likely to be different if there is some medical indication that infant circumcision is necessary. Hygiene is often cited as a justification for circumcision, but intact men can and do learn to care for themselves adequately.I am not a medical doctor, but I wouldn't take one doctor's opinion that there is a medical indication for the procedure. A condition known as physiological phimosis (the simple presence of a foreskin that does not retract, where the condition is part of normal development and not indicative of a medical problem) exists for virtually every newborn male. This is normal and expected, and many physicians consider physiological phimosis to be normal even as late as puberty. Pathological phimosis, the same condition as stated above but with the complication that it is causing a medical problem, cannot be diagnosed at birth for a normal healthy newborn, since it is not expected that a newborn boy will have a fully separated foreskin in the first place. When phimosis hasn't corrected itself naturally in an older boy or young man, where retraction of the foreskin is painful or cannot happen at all, then there may be other treatments to consider before going with surgery. If all other options have failed or have been ruled out, then by all means a clear medical indication would lead one to opt for circumcision.If you are considering circumcision as an option simply because it is frequently done, please take time to study about it, its actual benefits and possible negative outcomes. Perhaps the boy will later appreciate having been given the chance to choose for himself whether or not he wants healthy and functioning tissue removed from his penis for cosmetic benefit. Routine circumcision in the US in declining year after year as many think it should. There is some strength to the argument that we should be allowed to keep the bodies we are born with, excluding medical necessity.
No.