New Hampshire lawmakers will consider next year whether the state should end Medicaid coverage for routine circumcision, an elective procedure frequently done on newborn boys.

The proposed legislation is similar to House Bill 1683, which the N.H. House rejected narrowly in March.

Rep. Ellen Read, D-Newmarket, co-sponsored HB 1683 and the latest legislative attempt.

She said in an interview Tuesday that she is a strong supporter of Medicaid, but feels circumcision, removal of the foreskin on a penis, should not be included in the government-funded health insurance program.

“There is no medical community, either in America or internationally, that believes that circumcision is medically necessary,” she said. “It’s the only cosmetic procedure that we cover with Medicaid.”

Rep. Emily Phillips, R-Fremont, was the prime sponsor of the original measure.

“I believe state Medicaid funds should be used for medically necessary procedures,” she said in an interview Tuesday, adding that in some cases there is a problem with the original circumcision and doctors have to redo the procedure.

Backers of continuing this coverage say circumcision can have medical benefits.

“That’s the other side of the argument, but we don’t cut off our tonsils or take out our appendix or our gallbladder before they flare up,” Phillips said.

A 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement says the potential benefits, including reduction of sexually transmitted diseases, outweigh risks of elective circumcision for newborn boys.

“Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine 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,” the statement said.

Rep. Joe Schapiro, D-Keene, opposed HB 1683.

In a speech before the House in March, Schapiro acknowledged that routine circumcision is not medically necessary, but also said it is not strictly cosmetic.

“There is ample research showing potential medical benefits such as reduction in penile cancers and reduced rates of HIV transmission,” said Schapiro, who did not run for re-election.

“It is a choice, a parental choice, and I am here today to ask you not to take that parental choice, that parental prerogative, dare I say that parental right, away.”

A fiscal note on HB 1683 said the state would save about $90,000 per year if it didn’t pay for newborn circumcisions.

Medicaid systems in 16 states don’t cover the procedure, according to the Boston-based nonprofit Circumcision Resource Center.

According to the CDC, the U.S. circumcision rate has declined to under 60 percent for newborn boys. Circumcision is a religious practice for some in the Jewish and Muslim faiths.

Lawmakers return to the Statehouse in early January to begin next year’s legislative session.

These articles are being shared by partners in the Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visit collaborativenh.org.