Appeal type: Medical necessity
Decision: Upheld

Diagnosis: Molar malocclusion, maxillary and mandibular spacing, and deep impinging overbite

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, treatment records, and insurer correspondence, it appears that this patient presented for evaluation for orthodontic care. The orthodontist recommended comprehensive orthodontics due to Class I molar malocclusion, maxillary and mandibular spacing, and deep impinging overbite. The Orthodontist has completed the Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation index as required and has chosen the automatically qualifying condition of deep impinging overbite with severe soft tissue damage to support orthodontic necessity. 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 Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation index attaining 10 points on review by internal reviewers. The orthodontist is appealing 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, a Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation 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 deep impinging overbite with severe soft tissue damage. This reviewer finds that this automatically qualifying condition criterion is not met as there is no evidence of soft tissue damage. In this case, the clinical circumstance does not meet insurer and plan criteria to justify orthodontic care. This reviewer concurs with the Handicapping Labio-Lingual Deviation index of the insurer attaining 10 points (4 points overjet, 4 points overbite, and 2 points labiolingual spread).

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 medical/dental necessity of orthodontic care.

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

The insurer's denial of coverage for braces is upheld. Medical necessity is not substantiated.