When you hear that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV by 60%, remember that those studies were done in specific countries of Africa. Not in the U.S.A., not in Europe, not in Latin America.
So when Arleen Leibovitz and Katherine Desmond tell you that "the groups that Medicaid covers are precisely those that experience the greatest prevalence of HIV and other STIs, which MC can effectively avert", remember that no American studies have shown a higher prevalence of HIV and STIs among uncircumcised males.
It would be easy. The U.S. collects all kinds of information on HIV positive patients. So why wouldn't American statistics be easily available? How the percentage of circumcised HIV positive males compares to the U.S. estimated prevalence of circumcision, compared to the intact (uncircumcised) HIV positive males with reference to the estimated intact population?
In fact, observational studies in the U.S, the NAVY, the Caribbean, the UK, have failed to show that protective effect from circumcision. A trial on MSMs (men who have sex with men) in Peru also could not find any protective effect.
And why is it that the U.S. is so interested in exporting circumcision to Haiti, the Caribbean, Latin America, China and other places? Why is it that there are no programs to export circumcision to Europe and Japan? Wouldn't they "benefit" from circumcision, if it was indeed a preventive measure against HIV?