It'd be a bit more persuasive if it was a study from a group other than a generation of doctors who were 99% circumcised as newborns themselves as SOP, and disproportionately Jewish or Muslim themselves to boot, and the benefits seem to be rest entirely on the effects on STD transmission. There are plenty of medical malpractice cases on messed-up circumcisions, but almost all STDs are treatable without wrecking the Instrument of Doom. The risks aren't actually balanced, they are all at the front end (So to speak) on the pro side, and all far down the road and dependent on lifestyle on the con side.
That said, I don't have a problem with making insurers pay for it for those who want to risk the male heir having wrecked pecker for life.