Light and Laser Therapy (for North Carolina Only)
Medical policy governing use of light and laser therapies for dermatologic conditions in North Carolina members covered by UnitedHealthcare.
Updated list of examples of unproven and not medically necessary light and laser therapies; removed 'excimer'.
Removed language indicating excimer laser therapy is considered cosmetic and not medically necessary for treatment of vitiligo.
Added language clarifying medical records documentation requirements used in reviews and that documentation does not guarantee coverage.
Added notation that CPT code 17999 is not on the State of North Carolina Medicaid Fee Schedule and therefore may not be covered by the State of North Carolina Medicaid Program.
Updated Description of Services, Clinical Evidence, FDA, and References sections to reflect the most current information.
Coverage Criteria
Medically Necessary - Pulsed Dye Laser
Covered when ALL of the following are met
Policy specifies PDL as proven for port‑wine stains.
Policy specifies PDL as proven for cutaneous hemangioma/hemangiomata.
Not Medically Necessary / Unproven Indications
Not medically necessary for the following due to insufficient evidence of efficacy
Policy explicitly lists acne vulgaris as unproven/not medically necessary.
Policy explicitly lists onychomycosis as unproven/not medically necessary.
Policy explicitly lists rhinophyma as unproven/not medically necessary.
Policy explicitly lists rosacea as unproven/not medically necessary.
Evidence summaries to inform coverage
Guidance and evidence summaries relevant to coverage decisions
AAP guidance; Krowchuk et al. 2019.
NICE, AAD summaries and multiple systematic reviews highlight insufficient high‑quality evidence.
Boen et al. 2017 and related reviews report mixed quality evidence.
Examples include Antoniou 2016, Mohamed 2016 and network meta‑analysis findings.
Sapra et al. 2022 and similar reports; caution advised.
Indication-specific coverage considerations
Coverage considerations by indication based on available evidence and guideline statements:
NICE and AAD guidance emphasize limited evidence and recommend PDT only in select adult patients when other treatments fail.
Systematic reviews/meta‑analyses report low‑to‑moderate quality evidence for combination therapy (Zhang 2022, Han 2021, Ma 2019).
Systematic reviews and small RCTs/meta‑analyses (Zhai 2024, Martignago 2024, Nguyen 2024) summarize these findings.
Evidence from small series and retrospective studies (Badawi 2020; Noyman 2025) is low quality.
Covered with criteria (device-based treatment for rosacea/rhinophyma)
Evidence-based coverage considerations (summary of findings across studies):
Based on controlled and comparative studies (Nguyen 2024, Zhai 2024, Martignago 2024) demonstrating benefit but limited by small samples and short follow‑up.
Small case series and retrospective cohorts report symptomatic and aesthetic improvement with acceptable safety (Badawi 2020; Noyman 2025).
Derived from clinical trials and observational studies describing typical treatment schedules and adverse event profiles.
Coding clarification: viral warts or plantar warts are not vascular proliferative lesions; therefore laser therapy used to treat warts should not be reported with CPT codes 17106, 17107, or 17108. See the Applicable Codes section for code listings and the notation about code 17999 and North Carolina Medicaid.
Light and laser therapies for acne vulgaris are considered experimental or not routinely covered when evidence is limited or heterogeneous. Guideline and systematic review conclusions note short-term, small, and often uncontrolled trials with variable protocols and inadequate long-term follow-up; high-quality comparative trials are lacking and the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) states evidence is insufficient to support recommendations for many devices.
Routine use of laser or light therapy as a standalone treatment for onychomycosis or for rosacea is excluded when mycological or durable clinical cure has not been demonstrated. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses report mixed results, high heterogeneity across studies, and unclear long-term efficacy; device-only approaches lack consistent evidence of durable cure.
Dye pulsed light (DPL) showed improvement in erythema and telangiectasia overall, but efficacy for telangiectasia was greater for mild versus severe disease. The study authors concluded that DPL is not optimal for treating severe telangiectasia in patients with erythematotelangiectatic rosacea (ETR), and efficacy is reduced for severe telangiectasia.
Policy update: the list of examples of unproven and not medically necessary light and laser therapies was revised effective 03/01/2026. The revision removed the term 'excimer' from the examples and clarified related wording elsewhere in the policy; see the Policy History/Revision Information for full details.
Summary: Use of light- or laser-based therapies for acne vulgaris, onychomycosis, rhinophyma, and rosacea is considered unproven and not medically necessary due to insufficient high-quality evidence demonstrating consistent, durable clinical benefit. Pulsed dye laser (PDL) remains proven and medically necessary for port-wine stains and cutaneous hemangioma, but the four listed conditions lack sufficient evidence to support routine coverage.
Rationale: routine use of light or laser therapy for acne vulgaris is not supported by high-quality evidence. Trials are often small, short-term, heterogeneous in devices and dosing, and many lack appropriate comparators or long-term follow-up; systematic reviews and guideline assessments conclude that higher-quality randomized controlled trials with standardized outcomes are needed before routine coverage can be endorsed.
Rationale: most laser and light devices studied for acne and onychomycosis lack consistent, high-quality evidence. Systematic reviews report high heterogeneity in study design, treatment parameters, and outcome definitions; while some trials report mycological or clinical improvement, pooled analyses and methodological limitations make it difficult to conclude device efficacy and durability.
Coverage nuance: device-based therapies for rosacea (including treatment of persistent erythema and telangiectasia) are supported by small observational studies and limited RCTs; when evidence is inadequate or limited to uncontrolled reports, coverage may be restricted or require prior authorization and documentation of prior medical management. Professional guidance acknowledges potential benefit for persistent erythema/telangiectasia but rates evidence quality as weak.
Note: a full list of specific examples of unproven and not medically necessary light and laser therapies and the exact policy wording are located elsewhere in the complete policy document. Refer to the Applicable Codes and Coverage Rationale sections for detailed lists and definitions.
Coding
| 17106 | Destruction of cutaneous vascular proliferative lesions (e.g., laser technique); less than 10 sq cm |
| 17107 | Destruction of cutaneous vascular proliferative lesions (e.g., laser technique); 10.0 to 50.0 sq cm |
| 17108 | Destruction of cutaneous vascular proliferative lesions (e.g., laser technique); over 50.0 sq cm |
| 17999 | Unlisted procedure, skin, mucous membrane and subcutaneous tissue (not on NC Medicaid Fee Schedule) |
| D18.00 | Hemangioma unspecified site |
| D18.01 | Hemangioma of skin and subcutaneous tissue |
| I78.0 | Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia |
| I78.1 | Nevus, non-neoplastic |
| Q82.5 | Congenital non-neoplastic nevus |
| Q85.89 | Other phakomatoses, not elsewhere classified |
| GEX | Phototherapy / Pulsed Dye Laser and related devices (see FDA 510(k) PMN listings) |
| FTC | Phototherapy device product code (examples include blue/green/yellow light devices) |
| MVF | Photodynamic therapy device product code (PMA listings) |
| * | CPT code 17999 is not on the State of North Carolina Medicaid Fee Schedule and therefore may not be covered by the State of North Carolina Medicaid Program. |
| Coding Clarification | Viral or plantar warts are not vascular proliferative lesions; do not report CPT codes 17106-17108 for laser treatment of warts. |
Provider Actions and Operational Requirements
Prior Authorization Recommended
Prior authorization is recommended when light- or laser-based therapy is requested for indications where standard therapies have not been effective, are not tolerated, or are contraindicated. Requests should include documentation of prior standard therapy trials (or clear rationale why such therapies are inappropriate) before device-based therapy is authorized.
- Prior authorization recommended for acne: document trials of guideline-recommended topical and/or oral therapies and reason for failure/intolerance before approving photodynamic or other light/laser therapies.
- Prior authorization recommended for onychomycosis: document trials of topical and/or systemic antifungals and rationale for inadequate response before approving device therapy.
- Prior authorization recommended for rosacea/device-based therapy: document trial of appropriate topical/systemic medical therapy unless contraindicated; consider authorization for persistent central facial erythema, telangiectasia, or phyma when documentation supports medical necessity.
- For infantile hemangiomas: include consultation notes from a hemangioma specialist and rationale for laser therapy timing (e.g., residual skin changes after involution or specific indications for earlier treatment).
Documentation Sufficiency
Medical record documentation must fully support the medical necessity for the requested services. Lack of adequate documentation may result in denial or non-coverage. Benefit coverage is determined by applicable federal, state, and contractual requirements and applicable laws; provision of records for review does not guarantee coverage or payment.
- Patient medical record must include relevant medical history, focused physical examination findings, and results of pertinent diagnostic tests or procedures.
- Documentation must be legible, retained in the patient record, and made available upon request.
- Incomplete documentation that does not substantiate the medical necessity criteria described in the policy may lead to denial or non-coverage.
Suggested Documentation to Support Medical Necessity
When submitting requests for device-based light or laser therapies, include the following suggested supporting documentation to demonstrate medical necessity. The presence of these items supports medical review but does not guarantee coverage.
- Clinical indication and description of targeted lesions (location, size, distribution) and baseline severity (e.g., IGA for acne, Onychomycosis Severity Index for OM, erythema/telangiectasia severity for rosacea).
- Detailed treatment history documenting prior standard therapies (topical, oral, systemic, duration, dosing), response to each therapy, and reasons for discontinuation or intolerance.
- Relevant diagnostic test results (e.g., KOH or fungal culture for suspected onychomycosis) when applicable to the indication.
- Specialist consultation notes when recommended by guidelines (e.g., hemangioma specialist for infantile hemangiomas).
- Proposed treatment plan including device type, settings (if available), number of planned sessions, treatment intervals, and anticipated therapeutic goals.
- Documentation of patient counseling on alternative therapies, risks, benefits, and expected outcomes.
- For continuation or repeat therapy: documentation of clinical response to prior device treatments with objective measures or photographic evidence when available.
Evidence and Coverage Risk
Decisions may be impacted by the overall strength and quality of evidence for the requested indication. Treatments supported only by limited, heterogeneous, or low-quality evidence may be subject to denial unless compelling, individualized documentation is provided.
- Acne vulgaris and onychomycosis: submit strong supporting documentation of prior treatments and clinical rationale, as evidence is mixed or insufficient for many device therapies.
- Rosacea and rhinophyma: provide severity documentation and evidence of failed or inadequate response to medical therapy when requesting device-based treatments.
- Coding and state applicability: include appropriate procedure and diagnosis codes; note that some codes (e.g., CPT 17999) may not be covered by certain state Medicaid programs (North Carolina).
Background
Background: common vascular lesions such as port-wine stains and cutaneous hemangiomas are frequently treated with pulsed dye laser (PDL) to lighten discoloration, reduce lesion size, or induce regression. PDL is identified in this policy as a proven and medically necessary modality for these vascular indications.
Definitions and Device Modalities
References and Revision History
Trek Health ingests and normalizes Transparency in Coverage data and payer policy updates to give provider organizations a clear view of how commercial reimbursement behaves across markets, payers, and services. Our platform transforms raw payer disclosures into structured intelligence that supports contract evaluation, payer negotiations, and service line strategy. By combining market benchmarks with ongoing policy visibility, Trek helps teams identify variability, risk, and opportunity in commercial reimbursement. The result is faster insight, stronger negotiating positions, and more informed financial decisions.