Appeal type: Medical necessity
Decision: Upheld

Diagnosis: Malocclusion. 
Treatment: D8080 comprehensive orthodontic treatment of the adolescent dentition and and D8670 periodic orthodontic treatment visit x 12. 
The insurer denied coverage forD8080 comprehensive orthodontic treatment of the adolescent dentition and and D8670 periodic orthodontic treatment visit x 12. 
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 anterior crossbite with gingival attachment loss, among other clinical findings. The orthodontist has completed the Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviations (HLD) index as required and has chosen the automatically qualifying condition of crossbite of individual anterior teeth (mandibular right canine) when clinical attachment loss and recession of the gingival margin are present, to support orthodontic necessity. The insurer has denied coverage for orthodontic treatment as not medically necessary as the clinical circumstance does not meet the required handicapping malocclusion medical necessity requirements on the HLD index attaining 16 points on review by internal reviewers. 

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, New York State requires, as of September 1, 2012, the use of an orthodontic Index, the Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation Index Report (HLD, New York State Medicaid program) modeled after Handicapping Labiolingual Deviation Index. 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
cross bite 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. 

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 including: 

Beglin, et al. A comparison of the reliability and validity of 3 occlusal indexes of orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthoped 2001;  20: 240-6, 

Parker. A study of 1000 malocclusions selected by the HLD Index. Am; J Orthod Dentofacial Orthoped 1999; 115:343-51, 

Theis, etal. Eligibility for publicly funded orthodontic treatment determined by the 
handicapping labiolingual deviation index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthoped 2005; 128:708-15. 

Each of these 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. 

Based on the above, the insurer's denial must be upheld. The health care plan did act reasonably and with sound medical judgment and in the best interest of the patient. 

The medical necessity for  D8080 comprehensive orthodontic treatment of the adolescent dentition and and D8670 periodic orthodontic treatment visit x 12 is not substantiated.