I actually got an answer!
Here was my first e-mail to them:
Dear NDPERS Board,
I was disappointed to see that infant circumcision is no longer considered cosmetic surgery under our health insurance program. Many of the other benefit plan changes listed on the same page seem designed to promote a healthy lifestyle and encourage preventative medicine; paying for an operation that has no proven medical benefits and is not recommended by any medical organization in the world certainly seems counter to that goal.
Infant circumcision is the amputation of a normal, healthy body part. Unless there is a medical condition of the foreskin which has not responded to less invasive treatment, amputation should not even be considered.
I seriously hope that the members of the Board will consider the policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which does NOT recommend infant circumcision.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...rics;103/3/686
As a member of NDPERS for just over 20 years, my insurance coverage is important to me. I have been very pleased with the coverage I receive as a State employee (at UND), and I was proud of the fact that my insurer was progressive enough to include infant circumcision in the cosmetic surgery exclusion several years ago (perhaps because Medicaid in the state stopped covering infant circumcision in 1986 – the second state to do so, after California). There are currently 16 states in which Medicaid does not cover infant circumcision, and more with legislation in progress.
Please review the cost of circumcising baby boys. The treatment of circumcision complications is far greater than the cost of caring for the rare foreskin problems that might arise; paying for infant circumcision not only legitimizes a cosmetic operation on an unconsenting minor, it costs thousands of dollars (both initially, and in treating complications) that could much better be spent elsewhere.
Thank you for your consideration.
Here is a summary of the response I received:
The woman who responded thanked me for my email. She said they decided to cover circumcision again for state employees to match BCBS coverage to other businesses. They did not intend this as a recommendation of the operation. Our premiums were not increased.
And my answer:
Thank you for your response. It didn’t answer any of my questions, but I do appreciate the acknowledgement that my e-mail was received.
While not a “recommendation”, providing coverage for an unnecessary cosmetic procedure DOES give it credibility. I have heard many people say that since their insurance covers infant circumcision, it must be a legitimate medical procedure.
Obviously there was a reason, a few years ago, for excluding infant circumcision in the first place. I am saddened that NDPERS (apparently with new members on the board) has chosen to be a follower, “to match the standard plan of benefits of BCBS other lines of business”, rather than continue to be a leader by encouraging other BCBS plans to exclude infant circumcision.
I'm glad you spoke up though. Awful!
