I think the issue with covering male infant circumcision relates to the
indication for doing it.  If done for phimosis I'd be surprised if it
weren't covered.  Done as a tradition, whether cultural or religious, as
nearly all circumcisions are, it lacks a convincing medical indication which
would get a third party interested in footing the bill.  Removing coverage
for male infant circumcision was a move intended to reduce the number of US
boys getting circumcised in infancy and it did have a measurable effect.
That may change back as our knowledge changes and it may not.  Medical
insurers don't cover piercings, which are not done for medical reasons.  I
bet if you read the fine print they don't cover morbidity resulting from bad
piercings either.
If the frenulotomy is being done for cosmetic or cultural reasons, don't
expect your medical insurer to pay for it.  If being done so a baby can
feed, you should insist that they do so and make a large stink if they balk.

Rachel Myr
Kristiansand, Norway

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
Mail all commands to [log in to unmask]
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or [log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet or ([log in to unmask])
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]