Diagnosis: Deep impinging overbite

Treatment: Comprehensive orthodontic treatment

The insurer denied coverage for 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, well as insurer correspondence, it appears that this patient presented for Evaluation for orthodontic care. The orthodontist recommended comprehensive orthodontics due to deep impinging overbite, among other findings. The orthodontist has completed the HLD (Handicapping Labiolingual 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 HLD index attaining 11 points on review by internal reviewers.

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 currently 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 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 severe or otherwise and does not support comprehensive orthodontic care using these criteria. In this case, the clinical circumstance does not meet insurer and plan criteria to justify orthodontic care. This reviewer concurs with the HLD index of the insurer with a total 1 of 11 points (4 points overjet, 5 points overbite, 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. 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.
Comprehensive orthodontic treatment considered is not medically necessary for this patient.

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

The insurer's denial of coverage for comprehensive orthodontic treatment is upheld. Medical Necessity is not substantiated.