Note: The following information is contained in the website http://www.circinfo.net/, and it has been copied with permission. This is not an exact copy of all the information found on the website http://www.circinfo.net/. For an exact text of the information contained in that site, please go onto the above mentioned site.
Published estimates that have NOT fully taken into account ALL of the problems that afflict the uncircumcised have found that on average the amount per circumcision across all ages versus mean lifetime medical costs in those not circumcised either work out about the same or slightly favor circumcision [70, 120, 210]. In one of these analyses it was stated that if the rate of surgical complications from circumcision was less than 0.6% or if risk of penile problems in uncircumcised males exceeded 17% (cf. the then current baseline of 14%) then circumcision would be preferred on a cost and lifespan basis . These analyses, some now a little dated, did not consider a variety of other conditions such as prostate cancer, chlamydia, cervical cancer, genital herpes, inflammatory dermatoses, physical, as well as sexual and other problems in uncircumcised men and their partners. When these conditions are factored in, then the cost of non-circumcision would greatly exceed that of circumcision.
For UTI, although 1-year cumulative incidence in circumcised and uncircumcised boys is 0.22% vs 2.15%, respectively, the mean inpatient/outpatient facility costs of treatment are $703 vs $1,179 (i.e., taken together, cost is 17 times higher for the uncircumcised) .
Cost of treating penile cancer was stated in 1991 as $5000 per year . And even back in 1980, the cost for treatment and lost earnings in a man of 50 with cancer was $103,000 . The costs are very much greater today.
In the case of prostate cancer alone, annual cost (US$3 billion) is over 10 times the cost of the 2 million neonatal circumcisions each year in the USA . If one adds all of the other conditions in males (shown in the diagram preceding `Conclusions' at end) cost is far greater than 10-fold. If one adds to this the costs in females (cervical cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, ectopic pregnancy), then the medical cost of lack of circumcision becomes astronomical. On top of this is the emotional cost to those affected and their families.
The reader should be aware that one particular `cost-utility analysis'  has been severely criticized  and should be disregarded.
Everyone has a right to ensure a healthy penis. Many who seek a doctor to circumcise themself or their child may be doing so because of a medical problem. However, most merely want what is best, be it prevention of future problems or esthetics. These are all valid reasons for requesting circumcision. A medical complaint, even if minor, should help reduce the overall cost by providing a return on a claim to a health insurance provider, if not covered by the health system of the country in which it is done.