AHIMA: Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10 (ICD-10-CM)

February 23, 2012

AHIMA: Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10 (ICD-10-CM)

Post #147 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Xw

This material relates to the forthcoming US specific “clinical modification” of the WHO ICD-10, known as “ICD-10-CM.” It does not relate to other country specific clinical modifications of ICD-10.

Update @ February 27: There has been considerable coverage of HHS’s announcement to delay the compliance date for ICD-10-CM.

Further coverage:

Press release

HCPro

Industry Experts Respond to Announcement of ICD-10 Deadline Delay

February 27, 2012

Industry experts respond as HHS has confirmed its intent to delay the ICD-10 compliance deadline, according to its latest press release. HCPro contacted numerous industry experts for their thoughts on the recent announcement by CMS. Although reactions are mixed, experts agree that forward progress on ICD-10 readiness for providers is essential…

ICD-10 may not be postponed for everyone

Ken Kerry | February 20, 2012

One school of thought is that it will be delayed for a year or two; but CMS’ announcement mentioned that only “certain healthcare entities” would be granted a reprieve. Which entities? We don’t know yet.

On January 16, 2009, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a Final Rule in the Federal Register mandating adoption of ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS to replace ICD-9-CM in HIPAA transactions, with a compliance date of October 1, 2013.

Until implementation, codes in ICD-10-CM are not valid for any purpose or use. ICD-10-CM has been subject to partial code freeze since October 1, 2011.

The 2012 release of ICD-10-CM is now available from the CDC site and replaces the December 2011 release:

International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM)

 

HHS announces delay for compliance

On February 16, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a press release announcing that HHS will initiate a process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities are required to comply with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “We have heard from many in the provider community who have concerns about the administrative burdens they face in the years ahead.  We are committing to work with the provider community to reexamine the pace at which HHS and the nation implement these important improvements to our health care system.”

HHS has yet to announce a new compliance date but it is speculated that the delay would be for at least one year, rather than for a few months.

Related content:

Post #142 | February 16, 2012

HHS Secretary Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date

For background see: 

Could the U.S skip ICD-10 and leapfrog directly to ICD-11?

February 16, 2012 | Tom Sullivan, Government Health IT

HIMSS statement, February 17, 2012

HIMSS Calls for Maintaining October 1, 2013 ICD-10 Implementation Deadline for Most Healthcare Entities

Information Week report

ICD-10 Delay Worries Health IT Leaders

The train’s already left the station for organizations that have been prepping for an October 2013 ICD-10 deadline, say health IT organizations and CIOs.

Nicole Lewis | InformationWeek |February 22, 2012

Practice Fusion

HHS Asks for a Delay to the Start of ICD-10

Robert Rowley, MD | February 21, 2012

AHIMA issues statement and press release

Yesterday, American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) issued a statement and press release in response to HHS Sebelius’ February 16 announcement to delay the ICD-10-CM compliance date.

AHIMA represents more than 64,000 Health Information Management professionals in the United States and around the world. www.ahima.org

American Health Information Management Association statement and press release

http://journal.ahima.org/2012/02/22/ten-reasons-to-not-delay-icd-10/

     AHIMA statement IDC-10 Delay 02.17.12

Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10

Feb 22, 2012 01:12 pm | posted by Kevin Heubusch | ICD-10

This week AHIMA announced it will reach out to leaders at the Department of Health and Human Services and urge there be no delay in the implementation of ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS.

“We recommend that HHS reach out to the full healthcare community and gather more information about the great strides many have achieved— in good faith—since the ICD-10 deadline was set in January 2009,” said AHIMA CEO Lynne Thomas Gordon, quoted in a statement.

Further, AHIMA encouraged the healthcare community to continue its implementation planning and not let up its efforts.

In a statement released today, AHIMA offered 10 reasons not to delay ICD-10 implementation.

Ten Reasons We Need ICD-10 Now

  1. It Enhances Quality Measures. Without ICD-10 data, serious gaps will remain in the healthcare community’s ability to extract important patient health information needed for physicians and others to measure quality care.
  2. Research Capabilities Will Improve Patient Care. Data could be used in a more meaningful way to enable better understanding of complications, better design of clinically robust algorithms, and better tracking of the outcomes of care. Greater detail offers the ability to discover previously-unrecognized relationships or uncover phenomenon such as incipient epidemics early.
  3. Significant Progress Has Already Been Made. For several years, hospitals and healthcare systems, health plans, vendors and academic institutions have been preparing in good faith to put systems in place to transition to ICD-10. A delay would cause an unnecessary setback.
  4. Education Programs Are Underway. To ready the next generation of HIM professionals, academic institutions have set their curriculum for two-year, four-year, and graduate programs to include ICD-10.
  5. Other Healthcare Initiatives Need ICD-10. ICD-10 is the foundation needed to support other national healthcare initiatives such as meaningful use, value-based purchasing, payment reform, quality reporting and accountable care organizations. Electronic health record systems being adopted today are ICD-10 compatible. Without ICD-10, the value of these other efforts is greatly diminished.
  6. It Reduces Fraud. With ICD-10, the detail of health procedures will be easier to track, reducing opportunities for unscrupulous practitioners to cheat the system.
  7. It Promotes Cost Effectiveness. More accurate information will reduce waste, lead to more accurate reimbursement and help ensure that healthcare dollars are used efficiently.

If ICD-10 Is Delayed:

  1. Resources Will Be Lost. For the last three years, the healthcare community has invested millions of dollars analyzing their systems, aligning resources and training staff for the ICD-10 transition.
  2. Costs Will Increase. A delay will cause increased implementation costs, as many healthcare providers and health plans will need to maintain two systems (ICD-9 and ICD-10). Delaying ICD-10 increases the cost of keeping personnel trained and prepared for the transition. Other systems, business processes, and operational elements also will need upgrading. More resources will be needed to repeat some implementation activities if ICD-10 is delayed.
  3. Jobs Will Be Lost.To prepare for the transition, many hospitals and healthcare providers have hired additional staff whose jobs will be affected if ICD-10 is delayed.

And Finally…

We Can’t Wait for ICD-11. The foundations of ICD-11 rest on ICD-10 and the foundation must be laid before a solid structure can be built. ICD-11 will require the development and integration of a new clinical modification system. Even under ideal circumstances, ICD-11 is still several years away from being ready for implementation in the United States.*

In the report by Tom Sullivan (Health Care Finance News, February 16, 2012), Christopher Chute, MD, who chairs the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group, warned of a possible further delay for completion of ICD-11, from 2015 to 2016.

Implementation of ICD-11 has already been shifted from 2012 to 2014, then last year, to 2015+. These are projections for pilot, then global implementation for ICD-11.

The DHHS Office of the Secretary Final Rule document, February 2009, stated:

“We estimated that the earliest projected date to begin rulemaking for implementation of a U.S. clinical modification of ICD–11 would be the year 2020.”

Canada uses a clinical modification of ICD-10 called ICD-10-CA. WHO-FIC meeting materials suggest that Canada might not move onto ICD-11 (or a modification of ICD-11) until 2018+.  Australia, which uses a clinical modification of ICD-10 called ICD-10-AM, is discussing potentially earlier adoption of ICD-11.

Filed under Clinical Modification, ICD-10, ICD-10-CM, ICD-10-CM compliance, ICD-11, ICD-11 in the media, WHO (World Health Organization) Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Round-up: Recent commentaries by Allen Frances, MD, on a DSM-5 in distress

February 22, 2012

Round-up: Recent commentaries by Allen Frances, MD, on a DSM-5 in distress

Post #146 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1X2

Allen Frances’ Blog at Huffington Post

DSM 5 Freezes Out Its Stakeholders

Allen Frances, MD | February 21, 2012

Scary news. The Chair of the DSM 5 Task Force, Dr. David Kupfer, has indicated that 90 percent of the decisions on DSM 5 have already been made.

Why so scary? DSM 5 is the new revision of the psychiatric diagnosis manual, meant to become official in May 2013. It proposes a radical redefinition of the boundary between mental disorder and normality, greatly expanding the former at the expense of the latter. Understandably, this ambitious medicalization of the human condition has generated unprecedented opposition, both from the public and from mental heath professionals. To top it off, the DSM 5 proposals are poorly written, unreliable, and likely to cause the misdiagnosis and the excessive treatment of millions of people.

Under normal circumstances the DSM 5 team would have taken the many criticisms to heart, gone back to the drawing board, and improved the quality and acceptability of their product. After all, the customer is very often right. But this DSM process has been strangely secretive, unable to self-correct, and stubbornly closed to suggestions coming from outside. As a result, current DSM 5 proposals show very little improvement over poorly done first drafts posted in February 2010.

Is there any hope of a last-minute save? I have gathered opinions from three well-informed DSM 5 watchers. They were asked to assess the current state of DSM 5 and offer suggestions about future prospects. The first comment comes from Suzy Chapman, a public advocate, whose website provides the most comprehensive documentary source on the development of DSM 5 and ICD-11. Ms Chapman writes:

DSM 5 consistently misses every one of its deadlines and then fails to update its website with a new schedule. The Timeline was finally revised a couple of weeks ago, but we are still no nearer to a firm date for the final period of invited public comment. We’ve known since November that DSM 5 is stuffed as far as its planned January-February comment period and that Dr Kupfer now reckons “no later than May” – but all the website says is “Spring.” That’s no use to those of us who need to alert patient groups and their professional advisers…

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress
The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.
by Allen Frances, M.D.

ICD-10-CM Delay Removes Excuse For Rushing DSM 5 Into Premature Publication: Time needed to avoid harmful document

Allen Frances, MD | February 22, 2012

Until yesterday, there were only two reasons to stick with the projected date of DSM 5 publication (May 2013): 1) the need to coordinate DSM 5 with ICD-10-CM coding, which was scheduled to start Oct 2013; and, 2) the need to protect APA publishing profits in order to meet budget projections.

The first reason just dropped out. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen G. Sebelius has announced that the start date for ICD-10-CM has been postponed. It is not yet clear for how long, but most likely a year (see http://www.dhhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/02/20120216a.html ).

also on Psychiatric Times

Registration required for access

ICD-10-CM Delay Removes Excuse For Rushing DSM-5 Into Premature Publication

and Education Update

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

DSM 5 to the Barricades on Grief

Defending The Indefensible

Allen Frances, MD | February 18, 2012

The storm of opposition to DSM 5 is now focused on its silly and unnecessary proposal to medicalize grief. DSM 5 would encourage the diagnosis of ‘Major Depressive Disorder’ almost immediately after the loss of a loved one—having just 2 weeks of sadness and loss of interest along with reduced appetite, sleep, and energy would earn the MDD label (and all too often an unnecessary and potentially harmful pill treatment). This makes no sense. To paraphrase Voltaire, normal grief is not ‘Major’, is not ‘Depressive,’ and is not ‘Disorder.’ Grief is the normal and necessary human reaction to love and loss, not some phony disease.

All this seems perfectly clear to just about everyone in the world except the small group of people working on DSM 5. The press is now filled with scores of shocked articles stimulated by two damning editorial pieces in the Lancet and a recent prominent article in the New York Times.

The role of public defender of DSM 5 has fallen on John Oldham MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association…

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

Allen Frances, MD | February 17, 2012

Lancet Rejects Grief As a Mental Disorder: Will DSM 5 Finally Drop This Terrible Idea

The Lancet is probably the most prestigious medical journal in the world. When it speaks, people listen. The New York Times is probably the most prestigious newspaper in the world. Again, when it speaks, people usually listen. The Lancet and The New York Times have both spoken on the DSM-5 foolishness of turning grief into a mental disorder. Will DSM-5 finally listen?

Here are some selected quotes from today’s wonderful Lancet editorial
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60248-7/fulltext

Previous DSM editions have highlighted the need to consider, and usually exclude, bereavement before diagnosis of a major depressive disorder. In the draft version of DSM-5 , however, there is no such exclusion for bereavement, which means that feelings of deep sadness, loss, sleeplessness, crying, inability to concentrate, tiredness, and no appetite, which continue for more than 2 weeks after the death of a loved one, could be diagnosed as depression, rather than as a normal grief reaction.”

“Medicalising grief, so that treatment is legitimized routinely with antidepressants, for example, is not only dangerously simplistic, but also flawed…”

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

DSM 5 Minor Neurocognitive Disorder: Let’s Wait For Accurate Biological Tests

Allen Frances, MD | February 16, 2012

Within the next 3-5 years, we will likely have biological tests to accurately diagnose the prodrome of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Much remains to be done in standardizing these tests, determining their appropriate set points and patterns of results, and negotiating the difficult transition from research to general clinical practice. And, given the lack of effective treatment, there are legitimate concerns about the advisability of testing for the individual patient and the enormous societal expense with little tangible benefit. Despite these necessary caveats, there is no doubt that biological testing for prodromal AD will be an important milestone in the clinical application of neuroscience.

How does this impact on the DSM 5 proposal to include a Minor Neurocognitive Disorder as a presumed prodrome to AD…

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

PTSD, DSM 5, and Forensic Misuse: DSM 5 would lead to overdiagnosis in legal cases.

Allen Frances, MD | February 09, 2012

In preparing DSM IV, we worked hard to avoid causing confusion in forensic settings. Realizing that lawyers read documents in their own special way, we had a panel of forensic psychiatrists go over every word to reduce the risks that DSM IV could be misused in the courts. They did an excellent job, but all of us missed one seemingly small mistake– the substitution of an ‘or’ for an ‘and’ in the paraphilia section that lead to serious misunderstandings and the questionably constitutional preventive psychiatric detention of sexual offenders.

DSM 5 is about to make a very different, less crucial, but still consequential forensic mistake. The proposed A criterion for PTSD includes the following wording…

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

Documentation That DSM 5 Publication Must Be Delayed because DSM 5 is so far behind schedule

Allen Frances, MD | February 07, 2012

I wrote last week that DSM 5 is so far behind schedule it can’t possibly produce a usable document in time for its planned publication date in May 2013. My blog stimulated two interesting responses that illustrate the stark contrast between DSM 5 fantasy and DSM 5 reality. Together they document just how far behind its schedule DSM 5 has fallen and illustrate why publication must be delayed if things are to be set right.

The first email came from Suzy Chapman of https://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com …

also on Psychiatric Times

Registration required for access

Documentation That DSM-5 Publication Must Be Delayed

Additional coverage of DSM-5 controversies

Sidney Morning Herald

About-turn on treatment of the young

Amy Corderoy | February 20, 2012

CONCERNS about the overmedication of young people and rigid models of diagnosis have led the architect of early intervention in Australian psychiatry, Patrick McGorry, to abandon the idea pre-psychosis should be listed as a new psychiatric disorder.

The former Australian of the Year had previously accepted the inclusion of pre-psychosis – a concept he and colleagues developed – in the international diagnostic manual of mental disorders, or DSM, which is being updated this year.

Professor McGorry has been part of a team researching pre- and early-psychosis, and his work in the latter helped secure a massive $222.4 million Commonwealth funding injection for Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centres across Australia…

Sidney Morning Herald

Suffer the children under new rules

Kathryn Wicks | Opinion | February 20, 2012

Canberra Times

A new chapter for psychiatrists’ bible

Amy Corderoy | February 19, 2012

Madness is being redesigned. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) will be updated this year, meaning what counts as a psychiatric disorder will change.

Frances, one of the architects of the current manual, DSM-IV, published in 1994, knows the results of his changes to the definitions of mental illness.

“We were definitely modest, conservative and non-ambitious in our approach to DSM-IV,” he says. “Yet we had three epidemics on our watch…”

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), Bereavement, Coalition for DSM-5 Reform, Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 field trials, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-5 timeline Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

“Bodily Distress Disorders” to replace “Somatoform Disorders” for ICD-11?

February 20, 2012

“Bodily Distress Disorders” to replace “Somatoform Disorders” for ICD-11?

Post #145 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Vx

The information in this report relates only to proposals for the WHO’s forthcoming ICD-11; it does not relate to ICD-10 or to the forthcoming US specific “clinical modification” of ICD-10, known as ICD-10-CM.

Codes assigned to ICD-11 Beta draft categories are subject to change as chapter reorganization progresses. Images and text in this posting may not reflect the most recently assigned codes. This post has been updated to reflect the launch of the Beta drafting platform and revisions to codes assigned during the drafting process as they stand at June 24, 2012.

Part One

 

This report contains an important update on proposals for ICD-11 Chapter 5: Mental and behavioural disorders.

In a February 16, 2012 report by Tom Sullivan for Health Care Finance News, Christopher Chute, MD, who chairs the ICD Revision Steering Group, warned of a possible delay for completion of ICD-11 from 2015 to 2016.

The ICD-11 Beta drafting platform was launched in May 2012.

The Beta drafting platform is a publicly viewable browser similar to the Alpha drafting platform that had been in the public domain since May, 2011.

You can view the Beta Drafting Browser here:

Foundation Component view:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en

Morbidity Linearization view:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en

The Morbidity Linearization is the view that includes (what may be temporarily assigned) sorting codes. These codes are likely to change as chapter organization progresses. Click on the small grey arrows next to the chapters and categories to display parent > child > grandchildren hierarchies. Click on individual terms to display descriptive content in the right hand frame of the Beta Browser.

Textual content for ICD-11 is in the process of being drafted and the population of content for some chapters is more advanced than others. Content for some of the “ICD-11 Content Model” parameters may display: ID legacy code from ICD-10 (where applicable); Parent(s); Definition; Synonyms; Inclusions; Narrower Terms; Exclusions; Body Site; Causal Mechanism; Signs and Symptoms.

(For ICD-11, entities will be defined across all chapters through up to 13 “Content Model” parameters – considerably more descriptive content than in ICD-10 and a significant workload for the Topic Advisory Group members and managers who are generating the content for ICD-11.)

The Beta Browser User Guide is here:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/Help/en

This page of the User Guide sets out differences between Foundation view and Morbidity Linearization view.

The various ICD Revision Topic Advisory Groups (TAGs) are carrying out their work on a separate, more complex, multi-author drafting platform. On their platform, editing histories and “Category and Discussion Notes” are recorded so the progress of proposals and reorganization of ICD entities can be tracked, as the draft evolves.

For the Beta drafting platform, interested stakeholders may register for increased access and interaction with the drafting process by submitting comments and suggestions on draft content and proposals.

For those registered for increased access, it is possible to download PDFs of drafts for the “Print Versions for the ICD-11 Beta Morbidity Linearization” for all 25 chapters of ICD-11. These are obtainable, once registered and logged in, from the Linearization > Print Versions tab.

Caveats

I’m going to reiterate the ICD-11 Alpha Browser Caveats because it’s important to understand that the ICD-11 Beta draft is a work in progress – not a static document – and is subject to change.

The draft is updated on a (usually) daily basis; when you view the Beta Browser, you are viewing a “snapshot” of how the publicly viewable draft stood at the end of the previous day; not all chapters are as advanced as others for reorganization or population of content; the draft is incomplete and may contain errors and omissions.

The codes and “sorting labels” assigned to ICD parent classes, child and grandchildren terms are subject to change as reorganization of the chapters progresses. The Beta draft has not yet been approved by the Topic Advisory Groups, Revision Steering Group or WHO and proposals for, and content in the draft may not progress to the Beta drafting stage; field trials have not yet been completed – so be mindful of the fact that the draft is in a state of flux.

As it currently stands, the Beta draft lacks clarity; not all textual content will have been generated and uploaded for terms imported from ICD-10 and there may be no definitions or other textual content displaying for proposed new terms.

Two chapters that are a focus of this site are Chapter 5: Mental and behavioural disorders and Chapter 6: Disorders of the nervous system (the Neurology chapter). (ICD-11 is dropping the use of Roman numerals.)

I won’t be reporting on specific categories in Chapter 6 in this post but will do a follow up post for Chapter 6 in a forthcoming post; again, there is a lack of clarity for Chapter 6 and requests for specific clarifications, last year, from the chair of Topic Advisory Group Neurology and the lead WHO Secretariat for TAG Neurology have met with no response.

Continued on Page 2: Somatoform Disorders in ICD-10; Somatoform Disorders to Bodily Distress Disorders for ICD-11?

Filed under DSM-5 draft proposals, Functional Somatic Syndrome (FSS), ICD-10, ICD-11, ICD-11 Alpha Draft, ICD-11 Beta Draft, ICD-11 consultation, MUS, Somatic Symptom Disorder, Somatoform Disorders, WHO (World Health Organization) Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Round-up: media coverage following Lancet’s criticism of DSM-5 proposals for grief

February 18, 2012

Round-up: media coverage following Lancet’s criticism of DSM-5 proposals for grief

Post #144 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1V2

Previous Post #143:

Criticism of DSM-5 proposals for grief in this week’s Lancet: Editorial and Essay

Bloggers

Christopher Lane, Ph.D.:  Good Grief: The APA Plans to Give the Bereaved Two Weeks to Conclude Their Mourning, Britain’s “Lancet” calls the proposal “dangerously simplistic and flawed.”

Allen Frances, MD: Lancet Rejects Grief As a Mental Disorder, Will DSM 5 Finally Drop This Terrible Idea

———————–

Media

———————–

Libby Purves, columnist and author, lost a son in his late teens to suicide.

The Times

Why must grief be a sign of mental illness?

Libby Purves | February 20, 2012

Treating the bereaved for depression after two weeks typifies our urge to medicalise everyday experience…

Content behind sub or paywall

———————–

Medscape

From Medscape Medical News > Psychiatry

Lancet Weighs in on DSM-5 Bereavement Exclusion

Megan Brooks | February 16, 2012

February 16, 2012 — An editorial that appears in this week’s Lancet expresses concerns about the proposed elimination of the bereavement exclusion to major depression in the forthcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) from the American Psychiatric Association (APA)…

Read on

———————–

Daily Mail

Lancet urges doctors to treat grief with empathy, not pills

Lauren Paxman | February 17, 2012

‘Grief is not a mental illness that should be treated with pills’: Doctors hit back at creeping medicalisation of life events

Treatment of grief with antidepressants is ‘dangerously simplistic’, experts say

Backlash follows the American Psychiatric Association’s reclassification of grief as a mental illness. In an unsigned editorial in the influential medical journal The Lancet, experts argue that grief does not require psychiatrists and that ‘legitimising’ the treatment of grief with antidepressants ‘is not only dangerously simplistic, but also flawed.’ 

Read on

———————–

ABC News Radio

February 17, 2012

Grief: Normal, Not A Mental Illness

(NEW YORK) — Grief following the death of a loved one isn’t a mental illness that requires psychiatrists and antidepressants, according to editors of The Lancet, who oppose “medicalizing” an often-healing response to overwhelming loss.

Routinely legitimizing the treatment of grief with antidepressants “is not only dangerously simplistic, but also flawed,” says the unsigned lead editorial appearing in Friday’s edition of the influential international medical journal. “Grief is not an illness; it is more usefully thought of as part of being human and a normal response to the death of a loved one.”

Read On

———————–

The Australian

Individual difference suffers in the neverending explosion of mental illness

Frank Furedi | February 18, 2012

YOU may be suffering from a mental illness that you never realised existed. The American Psychiatric Association has just published a draft version of the updated edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. According to this diagnostic bible, called DSM-5, shyness in children and confusion over gender is likely to be labelled as a mental disorder.

Read on for subscribers

———————–

TIME

Depression

Good Grief! Psychiatry’s Struggle to Define Mental Illness Goes Awry

A proposed new definition of depression would include normal bereavement. Why that’s a bad idea.

Maia Szalavitz | @maiasz | February 17, 2012

The editors of the forthcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — psychiatry’s diagnostic handbook — are having a hard time. They’ve been attacked by autism advocacy groups for proposing to eliminate the Asperger’s diagnosis. They’ve been slammed for adding a diagnosis, or “prediagnosis,” for people determined to be “at high risk” of developing schizophrenia. And, now, they’re being pummeled for introducing a provision to diagnose grief as depression…

Read on

———————–

Telegraph

Grief is not an illness, warns The Lancet

Stephen Adams Medical Correspondent | February 17, 2012

Bereaved relatives overcome by grief should not be given pills and treated as if they are clinically depressed, a leading medical journal warns today (Fri).

“Grief is not an illness”, say the journal’s editors in an impassioned editorial, which argues that “medicalising” such a normal human emotion is “not only dangerously simplistic, but also flawed”.

Doctors tempted to prescribe pills “would do better to offer time, compassion, remembrance and empathy”, they write.

The editors are worried by moves which appear to categorise extreme emotions as problems that need fixing.

Their fears have been prompted by the publication of a new draft version of the psychiatrists’ ‘bible’, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as DSM-5…

Read on

———————–

Inside Ireland

The Lancet: Grief is not an illness

Sarah Greer | February 17, 2012

A leading medical journal has today warned that bereaved relatives should not be given pills and treated as if they are clinically depressed.

“Grief is not an illness,” the journal’s editors say. They argue that ‘medicalising’ such a normal human emotion is ‘not only dangerously simplistic, but also flawed’, and say doctors who are tempted to prescribe pills ‘would do better to offer time, compassion, remembrance and empathy’.

The editors are worried by moves which appear to categorise extreme emotions as problems that need fixing…

Read on

———————–

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), Bereavement, Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 consultation, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-5 timeline, Lancet Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Criticism of DSM-5 proposals for grief in this week’s Lancet: Editorial and Essay

February 17, 2012

Criticism of DSM-5 proposals for grief in this week’s Lancet: Editorial and Essay

Post #143 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Um

Update:

Christopher Lane Ph.D. has blogged at Side Effects at Psychology Today

Side Effects
From quirky to serious, trends in psychology and psychiatry.
by Christopher Lane, Ph.D.

Good Grief: The APA Plans to Give the Bereaved Two Weeks to Conclude Their Mourning

Britain’s “Lancet” calls the proposal “dangerously simplistic and flawed.”

Published on February 17, 2012 by Christopher Lane, Ph.D. in Side Effects

Allan Frances, MD, former chair of DSM-IV Task Force has blogged in DSM5 in Distress at Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress
The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.
by Allen Frances, M.D.

Lancet Rejects Grief As a Mental Disorder

Will DSM 5 Finally Drop This Terrible Idea

Published on February 17, 2012 by Allen J. Frances, M.D. in DSM5 in Distress

 

This week in the Lancet

The lead Editorial in this week’s Lancet expresses concerns about specific proposals for the next edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

The misclassification of grief as a mental illness

An Editorial expresses concerns about the forthcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). While previous editions of DSM have highlighted the need to consider, and usually exclude, bereavement before diagnosis of a major depressive disorder, the current draft of this fifth edition fails to do that. In this week’s The Art of Medicine Arthur Kleinma reflects on his own personal experiences of grief and continues the discussion on the classification of grief as a mental illness. Finally, a Comment asks if attenuated psychosis syndrome should be included in DSM-5.

Lancet Editorial: Grief is not an illness and should not be routinely treated with antidepressants (Full text)

The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9816, Page 589, 18 February 2012 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60248-7 
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60248-7/fulltext

Also includes reference to ICD-11:

“WHO’s International Classification of Diseases, currently under revision as ICD-11, is debating a proposal to include “prolonged grief disorder”, but it will be another 18 months before that definition will be clear.” Editorial, The Lancet, Page 589, 18 February 2012

Essay: Culture, bereavement, and psychiatry (Full text)

The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9816, Pages 608 – 609, 18 February 2012 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60258-X
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60258-X/fulltext

Comment: Should attenuated psychosis syndrome be included in DSM-5? (Subscription or payment required)

The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9816, Pages 591 – 592, 18 February 2012 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61507-9
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61507-9/fulltext

Previous Lancet article on DSM-5

The first flight of DSM-5 | Niall Boyce

The Lancet, Volume 377, Issue 9780, Pages 1816 – 1817, 28 May 2011 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60743-5

Filed under Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 in the media, ICD-11 in the media, Lancet, WHO (World Health Organization) Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

HHS Secretary Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date

February 16, 2012

HHS Secretary Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date

Post #142 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Ux

Coverage today of the announcement by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen G. Sebelius of intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date.

Will American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees take this opportunity to delay its DSM-5 timeline, take a breathing space, and reconsider its controversial proposals for DSM-5, or submit them to independent scientific scrutiny?

Link to report at end of post also quotes Chris Chute, Chair, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group, on possible delay for completion of ICD-11 from 2015 to 2016 – no surprise that ICD Revision may be considering another shift of timeline given the technical ambitiousness of the revision project, the lack of resources and slipping targets for the Alpha and Beta drafts.

Tom Sullivan reports:

Should the U.S. delay the ICD-10 compliance deadline just one year, until 2014, then the WHO will have a beta of ICD-11 ready. And if Sisko’s gut is correct, and the new ICD-10 deadline flows into 2015, well, then a final version of ICD-11 will be fast-approaching.

When it arrives, currently slated for 2015 (but Chute said it could be 2016), the underlying structure of ICD-11 will be profoundly different than any anterior ICD.

“ICD-11 will be significantly more sophisticated, both from a computer science perspective and from a medical content and description perspective,” Chute explains. “Each rubric in ICD-11 will have a fairly rich information space and metadata around it. It will have an English language definition, it will have logical linkages with attributes to SNOMED, it will have applicable genomic information and underpinnings linked to HUGO, human genome standard representations.”

ICD-10, as a point of contrast, provides a title, a string, a number, inclusion terms and an index. No definitions. No linkages because it was created before the Internet, let alone the semantic web. No rich information space.”

 

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10 compliance date

February 16, 2012 | Carl Natale, Editor, ICD10Watch

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen G. Sebelius confirmed Wednesday that they will change the ICD-10 timeline.

A HHS press release stated they “will initiate the rulemaking process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities have to comply with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes (ICD-10).”

On Tuesday, Marilyn Tavenner, the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said the agency will examine the ICD-10-CM/PCS timeline. Tavenner made the statement at a conference of the American Medical Association (AMA) National Advocacy Conference. The AMA has declared vigorous opposition to the medical coding system citing the cost, complexity and lack of perceived benefit to patients… Read on

 

CMS Public Affairs Press Release:

http://www.dhhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/02/20120216a.html

News Release
Contact: CMS Public Affairs
(202) 690-6145

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 16, 2012

HHS announces intent to delay ICD-10 compliance date

As part of President Obama’s commitment to reducing regulatory burden, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen G. Sebelius today announced that HHS will initiate a process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities have to comply with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes (ICD-10).

The final rule adopting ICD-10 as a standard was published in January 2009 and set a compliance date of October 1, 2013 – a delay of two years from the compliance date initially specified in the 2008 proposed rule. HHS will announce a new compliance date moving forward.

“ICD-10 codes are important to many positive improvements in our health care system,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “We have heard from many in the provider community who have concerns about the administrative burdens they face in the years ahead. We are committing to work with the provider community to reexamine the pace at which HHS and the nation implement these important improvements to our health care system.”

ICD-10 codes provide more robust and specific data that will help improve patient care and enable the exchange of our health care data with that of the rest of the world that has long been using ICD-10. Entities covered under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) will be required to use the ICD-10 diagnostic and procedure codes.

Report:

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/could-us-skip-icd-10-and-leapfrog-directly-icd-11

Could the U.S skip ICD-10 and leapfrog directly to ICD-11?

February 16, 2012 | Tom Sullivan, Government Health IT

Filed under ICD revision process, ICD-10, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11, ICD-11 Beta Draft, ICD-11 in the media, WHO (World Health Organization) Tagged with , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →