Appeal type: Medical necessity
Decision: Overturned

Diagnosis: Malocclusion

Treatment: D8080 braces, D8670 monthly visit x 12

The insurer denied coverage for D8080 braces, D8670 monthly visit x 12

The denial is overturned.

 
Upon review of the submitted documentation including lateral cephalometric radiograph, panoramic radiograph, montage of extraoral and intraoral clinical images, dental treatment noted as well as insurer correspondence, it appears that this patient presented for evaluation for orthodontic care. The orthodontist identified maxillary and mandibular crowding, overjet and anterior crossbite (mandibular right canine). The orthodontist has completed the Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation (HLD) Index Report 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. The insurer has denied coverage for orthodontic treatment as not medically necessary as the clinical circumstance does not meet the requirements of the HLD index attaining 17 points by internal reviewers when 26 points are required for approval. 

Upon review of the submitted documentation it is evident that the patient exhibits a significant 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 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 met and does support comprehensive orthodontic care. In this case, the clinical circumstance does 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.

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 acceptable methodology, this has been determined to represent an appropriate approach for assessing orthodontic need. 

Overturn the denial as the clinical circumstance as presented does meet and substantiate the medical/dental necessity of orthodontic care as it meets the accepted criteria for approval.

Based on the above, the insurer's denial must be overturned. The health care plan did not act reasonably and with sound medical judgment and in the best interest of the patient. 

The medical necessity for D8080 braces, D8670 monthly visit x 12 is substantiated.