Appeal type: Medical necessity
Decision: Upheld

Diagnosis: Malocclusion
Treatment: Braces
The insurer denied coverage for braces.
The denial is upheld.
 
Upon review of the submitted documentation including lateral cephalometric radiograph, panoramic radiograph, montage of extraoral and intraoral clinical images, orthodontist treatment records, as well as insurer correspondence, it appears that this patient presented for evaluation for orthodontic care. The orthodontist identified several clinical findings including overjet, overbite, and anterior crowding and has recommended orthodontics. The orthodontist has completed the Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation (HLD) index attaining 22 total points to support orthodontic care. 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 (Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation) index. The patient's mother is appealing the decision on behalf of the patient.

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 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 does not claim an automatic qualifying condition and completes the second portion of the index arriving at 22 points to justify orthodontic care. This reviewer concurs with the index completed by the orthodontist attaining a total of 22 points on the HLD (Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation) index (3 overjet, 6 overbite, 10 anterior crowding, 3 labiolingual spread) which is below the threshold of 26 points to support orthodontic care. Of note is in this case, the patient's own orthodontist does not attain 26 points on the HLD (Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation) index as required for orthodontic approval.

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. 

Uphold denial as the clinical circumstance as presented does not substantiate the medical/ dental necessity of orthodontic care as it does not meet the accepted criteria for approval.
In this case the patient's own orthodontists completed HLD (Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation) index total score of 22 points remaining below the threshold of 26 points to justify orthodontic care.

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 braces is not substantiated.