Appeal type: Medical necessity
Decision: Upheld

Diagnosis: Anterior Crossbite with Gingival Attachment Loss
Treatment: Comprehensive orthodontic treatment
The insurer denied coverage for comprehensive orthodontic treatment
The denial is upheld

Upon review of the submitted documentation including lateral cephalometric radiograph, panoramic radio graph, 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 Deviation (HLD) index as required and has chosen the automatically qualifying condition of crossbite of individual anterior teeth when 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, the use of an orthodontic Index, HLD 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 crossbite of individual anterior teeth when clinical attachment loss and recession of the gingiva 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 score on the HLD index attains 6 points (2 overjet, 2 overbite, 2 labiolingual spread) which is below the required 26 points.

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. 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. 

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

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

The insurer's denial of coverage for the comprehensive orthodontic treatment is upheld. Medical Necessity is not substantiated.