Appeal type: Medical necessity
Decision: Upheld

Diagnosis: Class I molar, Class I canine, open bite -1 millimeter (mm), overjet 5mm, severe crowding upper and lower, impacted left tooth #7 (L7's) and upper left #7 (UL7), lip incompetence, mentalis strain

Treatment: D8080 comprehensive orthodontic treatment

The insurer denied coverage for D8080 comprehensive orthodontic treatment

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 skeletal Class I, Class I canines, overjet, open bite, ectopic eruption, severe maxillary and mandibular crowding and has recommended orthodontics. The Orthodontist has completed the Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation (HLD) index attaining 32 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 having attained a score of 20 points on the HLD index. The orthodontist is appealing the decision.

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, 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 does not claim an automatic qualifying condition and completes the second portion of the index arriving at 32 points to justify orthodontic care. This reviewer concurs with the index completed by the insurer attaining a total of
20 points on the HLD index (5 overjet, 2 overbite, 6 ectopic eruption, 5 anterior
crowding, 2 labiolingual spread) which is below the threshold of 26 points to support 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 the 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.

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

The insurer's denial of coverage for D8080 comprehensive orthodontic treatment of the adolescent dentition is upheld. Medical necessity is not substantiated.