Summary: September 19 ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting
Post #205 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2vc
The September meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee, jointly chaired by CMS and CDC, took place on September 19, 2012.
For further information on this public process see the CDC website page:
Meeting Summary document
The meeting Summary document has now been published. The audio is not yet available.
The Summary document can be downloaded here:
September 19, 2012
Summary (10 pages) [PDF - 59 KB]
or opened in PDF format here: Summary September 19 2012
The Proposals and Agenda document can be downloaded here:
ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting
September 19, 2012
Proposals (74 pages) [PDF - 730 KB]
or opened in PDF format here: Topic packet for September 19 2012
According to the Summary document, the deadline for receipt of public comments on proposals submitted at this meeting is November 16, 2012. If there is any change to this date, I will update.
Comments on proposals presented at the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting should be sent to the following email address: nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov. See Page One of the Summary document for important information on submission of public comment.
Extract, Summary document
Chronic fatigue syndrome
Andreas Kogelnik, MD, representing the Coalition 4 ME/CFS, was available via telephone to address questions and clinical concerns.
Lori Chapo-Kroger, representing the Coalition 4 ME/CFS, expressed that many nations, and the World Health Organization, put CFS at G93 in ICD-10, and that this would include everyone but the U.S.
Mary Dimmock, representing the Coalition 4 ME/CFS, questioned why the change must wait until after 2014 when they feel that this is an error in the classification right now (and has been since 2001).
Dr. Kogelnik indicated that the term myalgic encephalomyelitis is used in Europe while the U.S. continues to use the term chronic fatigue syndrome, and that the Coalition 4 ME/CFS considers these two conditions (CFS and ME) to be the same. That is why they want both terms included in the same code.
Nelly Leon-Chisen, AHA, noted support for a need for a code for chronic fatigue syndrome distinct from chronic fatigue, unspecified. She indicated also that with the cause being unknown it is better that the classification not be locked into placing CFS as a viral code. Also, if there is no consensus for ME and CFS being the same then it makes sense to keep them as two separate codes. If research later develops that says they are the same then the data can be aggregated together. However, if the research does not show this, then you don’t have them lumped into one code that does not allow you to separate out one from the other.
Sue Bowman, AHIMA, questioned counting all CFS as following a virus infection. She expressed a need for clinical consensus on this condition. Also, she stated that she did not see a rationale for an early change (before 2014).
Note: Dx Revision Watch has no connection with the Coalition 4 ME/CFS or with the development of any proposals submitted by this organization. The views and opinions expressed in Coalition 4 ME/CFS submissions to ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meetings represent the views of the Coalition 4 ME/CFS and its representatives and not the views of Dx Revision Watch.
All enquiries about proposals submitted to CMS/CDC on behalf of the Coalition 4 ME/CFS should be addressed directly to the Coalition 4 ME/CFS.
Note also that the proposal from the Coalition 4 ME/CFS (Option 1) and the alternative proposal presented by CMS/CDC (Option 2) at the September meeting are set out in accordance with the requirements of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee for the submission of proposals.
For Options 1 and Option 2 see post Proposals: September 19 ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting or Proposals document Topic packet for September 19 2012