Appeal type: Medical necessity
Decision: Upheld

Diagnosis: Cross-bite and Attachment Loss. 

Treatment: D8080 Braces and D8670 Monthly Visit. 

The insurer denied coverage for D8080 Braces and D8670 Monthly Visit. 

The denial is Upheld. 

The patient is a female with cross-bite and attachment loss. 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. 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 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. The clinical circumstance does not meet the required handicapping malocclusion medical necessity requirements on the HLD index, attaining only 20 points on review by internal reviewers.  

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 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 criteria to justify orthodontic care. This reviewer concurs with the HLD index of the insurer attaining 20 points (4 overjet, 5 overbite, 6 ectopic eruption, and 5 labiolingual spread).

Regarding the validity of the Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation 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 cited below. 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 healthcare plan acted reasonably and with sound medical judgment in the best interest of the patient.

The coverage of braces D8080 - comprehensive orthodontic treatment of the adolescent dentition and D8670 - periodic orthodontic visits is not considered medically necessary for this patient.

The carrier's denial of coverage of braces D8080 and D8670 is upheld. The medical necessity is not substantiated.