Appeal type: Medical necessity
Decision: Upheld

Diagnosis: Loss of the Mandibular Canines. 
Treatment: Orthodontic Treatment. 

The insurer denied coverage for orthodontic treatment. 

The denial is upheld. 

The patient is a male with no significant past medical history who presented for evaluation for orthodontic care. Documentation review were lateral cephalometric radiograph, panoramic radiograph, montage of extraoral and intraoral clinical images, treatment records, as well as insurer correspondence. The orthodontist recommended comprehensive orthodontics due to skeletal Class III, vertical growth pattern, maxillary and mandibular crowding, posterior cross bite and anterior crossbite with gingival attachment loss (mandibular canine). The orthodontist has completed the HLD index as required and has chosen the automatically qualifying condition of crossbite of individual anterior teeth when clinical attachment loss and recession of the gingival margin are present to support orthodontic necessity. 

Upon review of the submitted documentation (study models were not provided for review), 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, a Handicapping Labiolingual Deviation 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 crossbite of individual anterior teeth when clinical attachment loss and recession of the gingival margin are present.  This reviewer finds that this automatically qualifying condition criterion is not met as there is no evidence of gingival attachment loss or gingival recession and therefore does not support comprehensive orthodontic care using this criterion.  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 8 points (1 overjet, 1 overbite, 2 labiolingual spread, 4 posterior unilateral crossbite). 
 
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. 

Uphold denial as the clinical circumstance as presented does not substantiate the medical/dental necessity of orthodontic care. 

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

The insurer's denial of coverage for D8080 comprehensive orthodontic treatment and D8670 periodic orthodontic treatment visit x 12 is upheld. Medical necessity is not substantiated.