Medical Policy Title: Implantable Bone ARBenefits Approval: 09/28/2011 Conduction Hearing Aids Effective Date: 01/01/2012 Document: ARB0190 Revision Date: Code(s): 69714 Implantation, osseointegrated implant, temporal bone, with percutaneous attachment to external speech processor/cochlear stimulator; without mastoidectomy 69715 Implantation, osseointegrated implant, temporal bone, with percutaneous attachment to external speech processor/cochlear stimulator; with mastoidectomy 69717 Replacement (including removal of existing device), osseointegrated implant, temporal bone, with percutaneous attachment to external speech processor/cochlear stimulator; without mastoidectomy 69718 Replacement (including removal of existing device), osseointegrated implant, temporal bone, with percutaneous attachment to external speech processor/cochlear stimulator; with mastoidectomy L8690 Auditory osseointegrated device, includes all internal and external components L8691 Auditory osseointegrated device, external sound processor, replacement Public Statement: Administered by: 1) Bone Anchored Hearing Aids (BAHA) are subject to review. 2) BAHA are used to augment hearing when air conduction hearing aids cannot be used. 3) The aids and their components are subject to the hearing aid limits. 4) The services related to the implantation are covered under the medical benefits. Medical Policy Statement: 1. Bone anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) are subject to review. 2. Implantable bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) or temporal bone stimulators are considered medically necessary hearing aids for persons age 5 years and older with a unilateral or bilateral conductive or mixed conductive and Page 1 of 5
sensorineural hearing loss who have any of the following conditions, preventing restoration of hearing using a conventional air-conductive hearing aid and who also meet the audiologic criteria below: A. Congenital or surgically induced malformations of the external ear canal or middle ear (such as aural atresia); or B. Dermatitis of the external ear, including hypersensitivity reactions to ear moulds used in air conduction hearing aids; or C. Hearing loss secondary to otosclerosis in persons who cannot undergo stapedectomy; or D. Severe chronic external otitis or otitis media; or E. Tumors of the external ear canal and/or tympanic cavity; or F. Other conditions in which an air-conduction hearing aid is contraindicated. AND: Audiologic criteria: A. Unilateral implant: Conductive or mixed (conductive and sensorineural) hearing loss with pure tone average bone conduction threshold (measured at 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 khz) less than or equal to 45 db HL (BAHA Divino, BAHA BP100), 55 db HL (BAHA Intenso) or 65 db HL (BAHA Cordelle II). B. Bilateral implant: Moderate to severe bilateral symmetric conductive or mixed (conductive and sensorineural) hearing loss, meeting above-listed bone conduction thresholds in both ears. Symmetric bone conduction threshold is defined as less than: I. 10 db average (measured at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 khz) or less than 15 db at individual frequencies (BAHA Divino, BAHA BP100); or II. 10 db average difference between ears (measured at 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 khz), or less than a 15 db difference at individual frequencies (BAHA Cordelle II, BAHA Intenso). Limits: Implantable BAHA are considered experimental and investigational for bilateral pure sensorineural hearing loss, and for all other indications. Background: The bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) is a bone-conduction hearing aid that allows direct bone-conduction through a titanium implant and has become available as an acceptable alternative if an air-conduction hearing aid is contraindicated. The boneanchored hearing aid transmits sound vibrations through the skull bone via a skin- Page 2 of 5
penetrating titanium implant, then sounds are further transmitted to the cochlea, bypassing the middle ear. Several clinical trials have shown its efficacy in patients with a conductive or mixed hearing loss. Indications for the BAHA include hearing loss from congenital ear problems, chronic suppurative otitis media, and in some cases otosclerosis as a third treatment option in those who cannot or will not undergo stapedectomy. A second group of potential candidates are patients who suffer from an almost instantaneous skin reaction to any kind of ear mold. In some patients, the benefits are not necessarily those in hearing ability but relate to cosmetic or comfort improvements. Preoperative assessment of the size of the air-bone gap is of some help to predict whether speech recognition may improve or deteriorate with the BAHA compared with the air-conduction hearing aid. There is evidence in the peer-reviewed published medical literature to support the use of bone anchored hearing aids over air conduction hearing aids, however, most of the studies have focused on individuals who suffer from single sided deafness, with unilateral sensorineural deafness in one ear while the other ear has normal hearing. The FDA has cleared for marketing the bone anchored hearing aid for individuals aged 5 years and older who have conductive or mixed hearing loss and for patients with sensorineural deafness in one ear and normal hearing in the other based on a 510(k) application. Such clearance was granted based on a determination that the BAHA was substantially equivalent to a contralateral routing of sound (CROS) air conduction hearing aid. A unilateral implant is used for individuals with unilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss and for unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. According to the FDAapproved indications, a bilateral implant is intended for patients with bilaterally symmetric moderate to severe conductive or mixed hearing loss. In a recently published metaanalysis of the evidence for BAHA for single sided deafness, Baguley and colleagues (2006) explained that acquired unilateral sensorineural hearing loss reduces the ability to localize sounds and to discriminate in background noise. Four controlled trials have been conducted to determine the benefit of contralateral BAHAs over CROS hearing aids and over the unaided condition. Speech discrimination in noise and subjective questionnaire measures of auditory abilities showed an advantage for BAHA over CROS and over unaided conditions. However, these studies did not find significant improvements in auditory localization with either aid. The investigators noted that these conclusions should be interpreted with caution because these studies have material shortfalls: (i) the BAHA was always trialled after the CROS aid; (ii) CROS aids were only trialled for 4 weeks; (iii) none used any measure of hearing handicap when selecting subjects; (iv) two studies have a bias in terms of patient selection; (v) all studies were under-powered; (vi) double reporting of patients occurred (Baugley, et al., 2006). Page 3 of 5
References: 1. UK National Health Service (NHS), National Library for Health. Knowledge update: Hearing aid provision and rehabilitation. Specialist Library for ENT and Audiology. London, UK: NHS; April 2006. 2. Bergeron F. Bone-anchored hearing aid. AETMIS 06-05. Summary.Montreal, QC: Agence D Evaluation des Technologies et des Modes D Intervention en Santé (AETMIS); May 2006. 3. Parrella A, Mundy L. Bone anchored hearing aid (BAHA). Horizon Scanning Prioritising Summary - Volume 8. Adelaide, SA: Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA) on behalf of National Horizon Scanning Unit (HealthPACT and MSAC); 2005. 4. Baguley DM, Bird J, Humphriss RL, Prevost AT. The evidence base for the application of contralateral bone anchored hearing aids in acquired unilateral sensorineural hearing loss in adults. Clin Otolaryngol. 2006;31(1):6-14. 5. Davids T, Gordon KA, Clutton D, Papsin BC. Bone-anchored hearing aids in infants and children younger than 5 years. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133(1):51-55. 6. Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services. Replacement parts for cochlear implant and bone-anchored hearing devices. Attachment 3. Wisconsin Medicaid and BadgerCare Update. No. 2005-20. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services; March 2005. Available at: http://dhs.wisconsin.gov/medicaid/updates/2005/2005pdfs/2005-20.pdf. Accessed July 29, 2008. 7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k). Branemark Bone Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA) System. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. 510(k) No. K984162. Rockville, MD: FDA; June 28, 1999. 8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k). Bilateral fitting of BAHA. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. 510(k) No. K011438. Rockville, MD: FDA; July 23, 2001. 9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). BAHA Divino. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. 510(k) No. K042017. Rockville, MD: FDA; August 26, 2004. 10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). BAHA Cordelle II. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. 510(k) No. K080363. Rockville, MD: FDA; April 10, 2008. 11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). BAHA Intenso. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. 510(k) No. K081606. Rockville, MD: FDA; August 28, 2008. 12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). BAHA BP100. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. 510(k) No. K090720. Rockville, MD: FDA; June 17, 2009. 13. Priwin C, Jönsson R, Hultcrantz M, et al. BAHA in children and adolescents with unilateral or bilateral conductive hearing loss: A study of outcome. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;71(1):135-145. 14. Verhaegen VJ, Mulder JJ, Mylanus EA, et al. Profound mixed hearing loss: Bone-anchored hearing aid system or cochlear implant? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2009;118(10):693-697. Page 4 of 5
15. Christensen L, Richter GT, Dornhoffer JL. Update on bone-anchored hearing aids in pediatric patients with profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;136(2):175-177. Application to Products This policy applies to ARBenefits. Consult ARBenefits Summary Plan Description (SPD) for additional information. Last modified by: Date: Page 5 of 5