Appeal type: Medical necessity
Decision: Upheld

Diagnosis: Deep Impinging Overbite, Maxillary and Mandibular Crowding.

Treatment the insertion of braces (comprehensive orthodontic treatment in the adolescent dentition) and adjustment of braces (periodic orthodontic treatment visit).

The insurer denied coverage for the insertion of braces (comprehensive orthodontic treatment in the adolescent dentition) and adjustment of braces (periodic orthodontic treatment visit).

The denial is upheld.

Upon review of the submitted documentation including lateral cephalometric radiograph, panoramic radiograph, montage of extraoral and intraoral clinical images, treatment records, as well as insurer correspondence, it appears that this patient presented for evaluation for orthodontic care. The orthodontist recommended comprehensive orthodontics due to deep impinging overbite, maxillary and mandibular crowding, Class II canines, and Class I occlusion, among other findings. The orthodontist has completed the Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation (HLD) index as required and has chosen the automatically qualifying condition of deep impinging overbite with severe soft tissue damage to support orthodontic necessity. 

Upon review of the submitted documentation, it is evident that the patient exhibits a malocclusion. However, to assess for severity of the malocclusion and therefore medical/dental necessity for orthodontic care, an HLD index is utilized. This index provides six specific conditions that automatically qualify for orthodontic care. Additional criteria are used utilizing a point system if none of these initial qualifying conditions are met or selected. For these other secondary criteria to qualify for orthodontic care a total score of 26 points is necessary.

In this case, the treating orthodontist claims an automatic qualifying condition of deep
impinging overbite with severe soft tissue damage. This reviewer finds that this automatically qualifying condition criterion is not met as there is no evidence of soft tissue damage severe or otherwise and does not support comprehensive orthodontic care. In this case, the clinical circumstance does not meet insurer and plan criteria to justify orthodontic care. This reviewer concurs with the HLD index of the insurer attaining 21 points (6 points overjet, 3 points overbite, 10 points anterior crowding and 2 points labiolingual spread).

Regarding the validity of the Handicapping Labiolingual Index, it has been shown through scientific scrutiny in peer reviewed journals that this methodology for assessing orthodontic need is a valid approach. This is confirmed by several studies.

Each of the peer reviewed articles concludes that this index is a valid and reliable determinant of need for orthodontic care. As this is an accepted methodology, this has been determined to represent an appropriate approach for assessing orthodontic need.

The clinical circumstance as presented does not substantiate medical/dental necessity of orthodontic care.

The healthcare plan did act reasonably and with sound medical judgment in the best interest of the patient.

The insurer's denial of coverage for the insertion of braces (comprehensive orthodontic treatment in the adolescent dentition) and adjustment of braces (periodic orthodontic treatment visit) is upheld. Medical necessity is not substantiated.