Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of the medical insurance guidelines for orthognathic surgery used by the major American medical insurance companies. Materials and Methods: This study assessed the validity of the medical insurance guidelines for orthognathic surgery used by Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), Cigna, Humana, and UnitedHealthcare (UHC). To evaluate the validity, we calculated the approval and denial rates of the 5 guidelines when we used them to assess the medical necessity for a control group of carefully selected patients. Patients were included in the control group if they met the criteria of a "prudent provider," crafted for this study. All rejected cases were analyzed to determine the root cause of the denials. The validity of the guidelines was also ascertained by determining their completeness and correctness. Results: The current study proves that no insurance guideline is in agreement with the criteria of a "pru-dent provide," When applied to carefully chosen patients, the requirements of BCBS, Aetna, Humana, and Cigna produce modest rejection rates of 6 to 12%. UHC is an outlier. Its guideline rejects 86% of patients, a rate about 7 times higher than its peers. Insurance guidelines disqualified patients for 3 different reasons: 1) no significant jaw deformity, 2) no demonstrable health impairment, and 3) the etiology of the condition is not a covered benefit. Additional evaluations demonstrate that the private insurance guidelines are incomplete, and at times, incorrect. Conclusions: This study shows that the medical insurance guidelines for orthognathic surgery used by the major American medical insurance plans need revision. The most consequential flaw was considering etiology in judging medical necessity. Fortunately, only one company adopted this policy. Moreover, all guidelines have omissions and errors in the way jaw deformity is determined and how health impairment is determined. (C) 2020 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

Purpose: Our current understanding of unilateral condylar hyperplasia (UCH) was put forth by Obwegeser. He hypothesized that UCH is 2 separate conditions: hemimandibular hyperplasia and hemimandibular elongation. This hypothesis was based on the following 3 assumptions: 1) the direction of overgrowth, in UCH, is bimodal-vertical or horizontal, with rare cases growing obliquely; 2) UCH can expand a hemimandible with and without significant condylar enlargement; and 3) there is an association between the condylar expansion and the direction of overgrowth-minimal expansion resulting in horizontal growth and significant enlargement causing vertical displacement. The purpose of this study was to test these assumptions. Patients and Methods: We analyzed the computed tomography scans of 40 patients with UCH. First, we used a Silverman Cluster analysis to determine how the direction of overgrowth is distributed in the UCH population. Next, we evaluated the relationship between hemimandibular overgrowth and condylar enlargement to confirm that overgrowth can occur independently of condylar expansion. Finally, we assessed the relationship between the degree of condylar enlargement and the direction of overgrowth to ascertain if condylar expansion determines the direction of growth. Results: Our first investigation demonstrates that the general impression that UCH is bimodal is wrong. The growth vectors in UCH are unimodally distributed, with the vast majority of cases growing diagonally. Our second investigation confirms the observation that UCH can expand a hemimandible with and without significant condylar enlargement. Our last investigation determined that in UCH, there is no association between the degree of condylar expansion and the direction of the overgrowth. Conclusions: The results of this study disprove the idea that UCH is 2 different conditions: hemimandibular hyperplasia and hemimandibular elongation. It also provides new insights about the pathophysiology of UCH. (C) 2021 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons