Visible bone loss
is a requirement
for SRP insurance
claim reimbursement
by Dr. Dominique Fufidio, FAGD
Periodontal disease, a chronic infection of the hard and soft tissues supporting
the teeth, is the leading cause of tooth loss in older adults1 and is not
uncommon in dentistry. The Journal of Dental Research reports that 47.2%
of U.S. adults age 30 and older have some form of periodontal disease,2 and
analysis of Egyptian hieroglyphics and medical papyri indicate that nonsurgical
periodontal treatment was common 3,000–4,000 years ago. (Now, that would
make for some unique office decor!)
Although instruments and techniques have been modified, scaling and root
planing (SRP) remains the quintessential step in managing periodontal disease.
Clinical trials support consistent responses making SRP the gold standard for
management of periodontally diseased tissue,3 but according to a report by the
American Dental Association, SRP procedures—including D4341 and D4342 specifically—have a higher frequency of denial, or receive more requests for additional
information, than other procedures.4 From experience, I believe dental providers
and offices don’t always understand the rationale behind an SRP denial when a
patient has signs and symptoms of inflammation and periodontal pathology.
What qualifies as “medically necessary”?
Why is insurance benefit reimbursement for SRP claims so challenging and
seemingly complicated?
While periodontology instruction is a foundational component of a dental
education, benefit utilization management and “medical necessity” are not.
When a claim is submitted to an insurance provider, the services are reviewed
to see if they meet what is called medical necessity for treatment. To determine
this, a payer will apply its specific criteria and policies, and although this criteria
is largely similar across carriers, each
payer does differ slightly as to what
is considered:
- the required information to
perform a review of the services
submitted, and
- what meets medical necessity
criteria resulting in a
favorable review.
For SRP reimbursement, root
surfaces need to be instrumented.5
Pocketing is a sign of pathology, but
variability from provider to provider,
and even among team members at the
same provider, has been documented,
sometimes up to 1 mm.6 As a result,
the reliability of periodontal charting
becomes limited7 and because the
payer’s team is not chairside, insurance
carriers are left to rely on the
one finding of utmost importance to
make a recommendation for benefits:
evidence of visible bone loss.
When I sold my practice and transitioned
to the payer market, I experienced
this confirmation of the medical
necessity challenge. I was left to hone
in on the presence of radiographic
bone loss. But how much bone loss
meets criteria? Is slight crestal bone
loss enough to say a patient has visible
bone loss qualifying for scaling and
root planing benefits?
Unfortunately, the answer across
the market is “not really.” A study by
Hausmann et al. published in the
Journal of Periodontology asked, “What
alveolar crest level on a bitewing
radiograph represents bone loss?”
and the study concluded a distance
of 0.4–1.9 mm, measured radiographically
from the cementoenamel
junction (CEJ) to the crest of bone on
bitewing radiographs, was consistent
with no bone loss.8 Another study by
Gargiulo et al. declared measurement
of less than 2 mm to be considered normal,
2–4 mm consistent with noticeable
disease and 4 mm related to severe
periodontal disease.9 And lastly, the
American Academy of Periodontology
defines periodontitis as 15% bone loss,
which equates to a measurement on a
periapical when the entire root surface
including the apex is captured.10
The struggle is real: A case study
To demonstrate my point, and to
empathize with your struggle, I’ll share
an example from my private practice.
This 42-year-old patient (Figs. 1–3) was
seen for a new-patient examination,
including six-point periodontal probing and complete soft- and hard-tissue
assessment—a true comprehensive
periodontal evaluation. The patient
had not seen a dentist in more than
five years, and preliminary soft-tissue
examination revealed all the signs
of inflammation, including glossy
gingiva, loss of stippling and rolled
gingival margins. There was plaque,
calculus, periodontal pocketing and
multisite bleeding, so I diagnosed this
patient with Stage 1, Grade A generalized
periodontitis and recommended
SRP (D4341) in all four quadrants.
Fig. 1: Select images from the patient’s
full-mouth radiographs
Fig. 2: Comprehensive periodontal charting..
Fig. 3: Soft-tissue examination findings
documented, as well as a summary of oral hygiene
findings and a radiographic interpretation overview
Despite what I believe was an obvious
need for the treatment, I received
an adverse determination where the
explanation of benefits indicated the
services on the claim were denied
for “necessity not [being] evident.”
I appealed the adverse determination,
recounting the bleeding, calculus
and pocketing, and received another
denial. I appealed a second time, adding
to my narrative and circling and
highlighting images, but was denied
again, so I exercised my right to a
peer-to-peer discussion.
This time spent with the claim
reviewer was when I realized I wasn’t
focusing on the one thing that really
mattered to them: visible bone loss of
at least 2 mm. Eventually the services
on this claim were paid for, because
we agreed there was visible bone loss
in excess of the criteria requirement
for this payer, but it took time to get
there. And by “time,” I don’t mean just
the appeal and reappeal—during our
phone discussion, the claim reviewer
and I went tooth by tooth, pocket by
pocket, bitewing by bitewing and PA
by PA, before eventually agreeing that
enough teeth in each quadrant had
visible bone loss to meet the criteria.
Using AI to measure bone loss
I believe that time-intensive struggles
like this one likely won’t continue,
because insurance companies have
begun to incorporate artificial intelligence
to help measure the level of
bone loss. However, because the analysis
of scaling claims will become less
subjective, providers need to understand
what’s being evaluated—and it’s
not the pocketing or the bleeding but
the bone loss, and bone loss of 2 mm
or more specifically. (Some carriers
may vary.)
Some dental practices have added
AI technology to their workflows
to measure bone levels on bitewing
radiographs and bone loss ratios
on periapicals, but even if you’re
not ready to add AI to your office
workflow, that doesn’t mean you can’t
keep up with the times. Developing a
keen awareness of the requirements
like the ones described in this article
will allow you a more predictable
claims submission experience
and make for a more accurate and
precise benefits discussion with
your patients.
It’s crucial to understand that the
decision from the insurance carrier is
a benefit determination based off the
guidelines, policies and provisions to
establish a consistent and calibrated
standard for all claims being
reviewed. It is not a clinical treatment
recommendation; the treatment
recommendation is clinically yours,
and yours alone. You must make
your best recommendations for your
patients and submit information
in support of your diagnosis that
influenced your treatment planning,
getting you paid for what you do and
benefiting the patient’s treatment.
References
1. Thornton-Evans G, Eke P, Wei L, Palmer A, Moeti R,
Hutchins S, Borrell LN; Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). “Periodontitis Among Adults Aged 30
Years—United States, 2009–2010.” MMWR Suppl. 2013 Nov
22; 62(3):129–35.
2. Eke PI, Dye B, Wei L, Thornton-Evans G, Genco R.
“Prevalence of Periodontitis in Adults in the United States:
2009 and 2010.” J Dent Res. Published online 30 August
2012:1–7.
3. Cobb CM. “Clinical Significance of Non-Surgical
Periodontal Therapy: An Evidence-Based Perspective of
Scaling and Root Planing.” J Clin Periodontol. 2002 May;
29 Suppl 2:6-16.
4. ADA (2023). “Claims Submission: Scaling and Root Planing
(SRP), Long Version.”
5. ADA. “CDT 2023: Current Dental Terminology Application
Software.” 2023. Accessed 19 June 2023.
6. Andrade R, Espinoza M, Gómez EM, Espinoza JR, Cruz
E. “Intra- and Inter-Examiner Reproducibility of Manual
Probing Depth.” Braz Oral Res. 2012 Jan–Feb; 26(1):57–63.
7. Khan S, Cabanilla LL. “Periodontal Probing Depth
Measurement: A Review.” Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009
Jan–Feb; 30(1):12–4, 16, 18–21; quiz 22, 36.
8. Hausmann E, Allen K, Clerehugh V. “What Alveolar Crest
Level on a Bite-Wing Radiograph Represents Bone Loss?”
J Periodontol 1991; 62(9):570–572.
9. Gargiulo AW, Wentz FM, Orban B. “Dimensions and
Relations of the Dentogingival Junction in Humans.”
J Periodontol 1961; 32: 261–267.
10. American Academy of Periodontology (n.d.). “2017
Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and
Conditions.” AAP. Retrieved May 2023 from perio.org.
Dr. Dominique Fufidio, FAGD, is the
founder and main coach at Fufidio
Consulting Group, where she has
pioneered a coaching experience focused
on understanding the dental insurance
claims review process. She also serves as
the director of specialty services for Apex
Dental Partners. Previously, Fufidio had
been the owner of a successful fee-for-service
private practice, a top-performing
dental claim reviewer and an artificial
intelligence co-creator. She continues
to engage with the dental community
via writing and speaking. Information:
fufidioconsultinggroup.com.