Coalition 4 ME/CFS – Letter to the Medical Community

October 25, 2011 by

Coalition 4 ME/CFS – Letter to the Medical Community

Post #109 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1kN

From Mike Munoz, via Co-Cure | October 25, 2011

On July 15, the Coalition 4 ME/CFS submitted a written proposal to the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee to restore CFS to Chapter 6 “Diseases of the Nervous System” code G93.3 in the ICD-10 Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) in the US.

This action follows the September 2004, August 2005 and May 2011 recommendations of the federally-appointed Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC). In each case, the committee recommended that CFS be in the neurological classification in the ICD-10-CM, in line with the rest of the world.

On September 14, the Coalition 4 ME/CFS made an oral presentation to the committee and responded to concerns expressed by audience members.

The coalition has written a letter to clinicians, researchers and other medical professionals outlining the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and the coalition option for modification

PDF: Coalition for ME/CFS Letter to the Medical Community

We have also included a sample letter for medical professionals and the public to give input rejecting NCHS’s option #2 in favor of the coalition’s proposal option

Html: Coalition for ME/CFS Sample Letter

We are asking medical professionals to comment on this important issue before the comment period ends on November 18.

Medical professionals wanting to add their signature to the coalition’s prepared letter to NCHS that will be submitted prior to the November 18 deadline can contact Mike Munoz at info@coalition4MECFS.org

More information concerning the coalition and the ICD initiative can be found at

http://coalition4mecfs.org/ICD-Home.html

Website: http://coalition4mecfs.org/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Coalition-4-ME-CFS/126612960745896

Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/Coalition4MECFS

Contact: info@coalition4MECFS.org

The PDF of the Letter to the Medical Community can also be downloaded from Dx Revision Watch here: Coalition 4 ME/CFS Letter to Medical Community

 

Related material:

Comments on proposals need to be submitted by November 18.

Comments from stakeholders, preferably via email, should be submitted to:

Donna Pickett RHIA, MPH
Medical Classification Administrator
National Center for Health Statistics – CDC
3311Toledo Road Hyattsville, MD 20782
Via email: nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov

You can download an Audio of the September 14 NCHS meeting here:

http://www.cms.gov/ICD9ProviderDiagnosticCodes/Downloads/091411_Meeting_Audio.zip

[Note this is a large Zipped file.  The section for discussions on CFS coding starts at 2 hours 27 minutes in from start and ends at 3 hours 02 minutes.]

 

1] Full NCHS meeting Proposals document:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd9/TopicpacketforSept2011a.pdf

2] Full NCHS meeting Summary document:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd9/2011SeptemberSummary.pdf

3] Post: Coding CFS in ICD-10-CM: CFSAC and the Coalition4ME/CFS initiative

4] Post: Extracts: ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting September 14, 2011 (Coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM)

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), CFSAC meetings, Clinical Modification, Coalition4ME/CFS, DSM revision process, DSM-5 draft proposals, ICD-10, ICD-10-CM, Somatic Symptom Disorder, WHO (World Health Organization)

Media coverage: Open Letter and Petition to DSM-5 Task Force by Society for Humanistic Psychology

October 25, 2011 by

Round up 1: Media coverage: Open Letter and Petition to DSM-5 Task Force by Society for Humanistic Psychology

Post #108 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1jZ

An Open Letter and Petition sponsored by a coalition of several Divisions of the American Psychological Association has attracted nearly 7000 signatures since its launch on October 22.

The Petition sponsors are inviting mental health professionals and mental health organizations to sign up in support of an Open Letter to the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5 Development Task Force.

The Open Letter, which is highly critical of proposals for the revision of DSM-IV by American Psychiatric Association DSM-5 Work Groups, is sponsored by the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32 of the American Psychological Association) in alliance with the following:

Open Letter and Petition Sponsors

Division of Behavioral Neuroscience and Comparative Psychology (Division 6 of APA)
Division of Developmental Psychology (Division 7 of APA)
Society of Counseling Psychology (Division 17 of APA)
Society for Community Research and Action: Division of Community Psychology (Division 27 of APA)
Division of Psychotherapy (Division 29 of APA)
Society for the Psychology of Women (Division 35 of APA)
Division of Psychoanalysis (Division 39 of APA)
Psychoanalysis for Social Responsibility (Section IX of Division 39 of APA)
Psychologists in Independent Practice (Division 42 of APA)
Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues (Division 44 of APA)
Society for Group Psychology and Psychotherapy (Division 49 of APA)
Society for the Psychological Study of Men & Masculinity (Division 51 of APA)

Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (Division of the American Counseling Association)
Association for Humanistic Counseling (Division of the American Counseling Association)
The Association for Creativity in Counseling (ACC, Division of the American Counseling Association)
The Association for Women in Psychology,
The Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues in Counseling (ALGBTIC)
Society of Indian Psychologists
National Latina/o Psychological Association
The Society for Personality Assessment,
The Society for Descriptive Psychology,
The UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP),
The Constructivist Psychology Network (CPN),
The Taos Institute
Psychoanalysis for Social Responsibility (Section IX of Division 39 of APA)

[See Coalition for DSM-5 Reform website for most recent list of official endorsers.]

For a copy of the coalition’s letter see previous Post #97 or go here iPetitions DSM-5

Media coverage is being collated below as it comes to my attention.

  

Media coverage

[See Coalition for DSM-5 Reform Tab page on Dx Revision Watch website for most recent media coverage.]

———————

Newsworks

Expanding catalog of mental disorders worries some

Maiken Scott | November 16, 2011

The so-called bible of psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is getting a make-over. The latest version, DSM 5, will come out in 2013. In the meantime, conflicts over which diagnoses should be added, removed or changed are heating up.

Thousands of mental health professionals who are not happy with the direction of the new DSM are signing an online petition…

Read full article

———————

Irish Medical Times

Pat Kelly is Web Editor and Sub Editor at Irish Medical Times

DSM-V revisions may ‘stigmatise eccentric people’

Pat Kelly | November 15, 2011

Read full article

———————

American Counseling Association

ACA blogs, written by counselors, for counselors

Paul R. Peluso is a counselor and Associate Professor in the Department of Counselor Education at Florida Atlantic University

A Letter to my Colleagues on the DSM-5

Paul Peluso | November 15, 2011

When I read the response to the criticisms offered by Dr. Darrel A. Regier, vice-chair of the DSM-5 task force that the DSM is “a set of scientific hypotheses that are intended to be tested” I became deeply concerned. My first thought was: “When I go to my physician, I don’t want her to have a hypothesized diagnosis that she is going to test on me, I want her to know what is wrong and how to fix it!” And while Dr. Regier’s comment (and a subsequent one that he “hoped” that there would be regular updates to DSM 5, like software) might have been meant to ameliorate the criticism against DSM-5, the reality is that once it is published they will go from being “editable hypotheses” to “diagnostic canon” that insurance companies, government agencies, and courts will all hold clinicians to (to say nothing of the pharmaceutical industry), which will have serious consequences for the entire field. The problem is that the process and its proposed remedy fails to take into consideration the criticisms against it: namely, that it has been based on VERY shaky science (if any at all).

This should concern us all.

Read full commentary

———————

Russell Friedman is Executive Director of The Grief Recovery Institute, and co-author of The Grief Recovery Handbook, When Children Grieve, and Moving On.

Psychology Today

Broken Hearts

Exploring myths and truths about grief, loss, and recovery.
by Russell Friedman

Speaking out on behalf of millions of unsuspecting grievers

From Travesty to Potential Tragedy

Russell Friedman | November 4, 2011

The intent of this blog post is to encourage you to read and sign a petition titled, Open Letter to the DSM-5. We are particularly focused on the proposed change in the bereavement exclusion which is one of the major protests in the petition. You can skip the blog and go directly to the petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/

The Dangerous DSM-5 Bereavement Exclusion Train Must Be Derailed BEFORE It Causes Permanent Harm To Unsuspecting Grievers

We are: John W. James and Russell Friedman, co-founders of The Grief Recovery Institute Educational Foundation, and co-creators of The Grief Recovery Method®. We are also co-authors of The Grief Recovery Handbook and When Children Grieve [both published by HarperCollins] and Moving On [M. Evans].

Read full commentary

———————

Labor Related blog

David Foley’s Labor and Employment Law Blog

Furor Over DSM-V

David Foley | November 12, 2011

———————

DSM5 in Distress

The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.

DSM 5- ‘Living Document’ or ‘Dead on Arrival: ‘untested ‘scientific hypotheses’ must be dropped

Allen J. Frances, MD | November 11, 2011

News flash From Medscape Medical News—“APA Answers DSM-5 Critics”—a defense of DSM-5 offered by Darrel A. Regier, MD, vice-chair of the DSM-5 Task Force. Wonderful news that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) is attempting to address the fact that DSM-5 alarms many of its potential users—it is long past time for an open dialog.

Unfortunately, however, Dr Regier dodges the concerns that must be addressed if DSM-5 is to become a safe and credible document. Five simple questions were previously posed to APA with a request for straight answers…

Read full commentary

also at

Psychiatric Times

(Registration for Psychiatric Times site required)

DSM-5: Living Document or Dead on Arrival

Allen J. Frances, MD | November 11, 2011

Read full commentary   

———————

DSM5 in Distress

The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.

The User’s Revolt Against DSM 5
will it work?

Allen J. Frances, MD | November 10, 2011

When it comes to DSM 5, experience has proven conclusively that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) will not attend to the science, evaluate the risks, or listen to reason. A user’s revolt has become the last and only hope for derailing the worst of the DSM 5 suggestions…

…Will the petition work?

Read full commentary

———————

USA Today

Psychologists challenge proposed new diagnoses in DSM-5

Rita Rubin, Special for USA TODAY | November 10, 2011

———————

Forbes

The New Mental Health Disorders Manual Is Driving Psychologists Nuts

Forbes | November 10, 2011

The new manual of mental disorders coins bizarre new psychological disorders, lowers the threshold for diagnosing old ones, and has some critics pulling their hair out…

———————

Psychology Today

DSM-5 in Distress

APA Responds Lamely to the Petition to Reform DSM 5
How about straight answers to simple questions?

Allen J. Frances, MD | November 8, 2011

———————

Registration is required in order to view Medscape article

Medscape Medical News > Psychiatry

APA Answers DSM-5 Critics

Deborah Brauser | November 9, 2011

———————

Before you take that pill

New Questionable Diagnoses on the Horizon from the DSM-5 Committee

Doug Bremner | November 8, 2011

———————

The Great DSM-5 Personality Bazaar

James Phillips, MD | November 7, 2011

“Evaluating the evaluation

There is something quite elegant about the DSM-5 Personality Disorders diagnostic system—an architectonic of divisions, subdivisions, and sub-subdivisions. On the other hand, for all their scholastic erudition, the work group have created a monster—a bloated, pedantic, cumbersome diagnostic instrument that will never be used by anyone working in the hurly-burly of clinical practice. Just imagine doing a routine new-patient evaluation and trying to include the personality disorder assessment, each of the first two criteria with its many-item scale, each item to be scored on a 4- or 5-point rating system. It’s hard to imagine anyone having the patience or motivation to use this instrument.”

Read full article

———————

Registration is required in order to view Medscape article

Medscape Medical News > Psychiatry

Petition Calls for Critical Changes to Upcoming DSM-5

Group Says It Has ‘Serious Reservations’ About Lowering Diagnostic Thresholds

Deborah Brauser | November 4, 2011

November 4, 2011 — Divisions of the American Psychological Association have created an online petition addressing “serious reservations” about the upcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5). Launched October 22, the petition has already garnered more than 3000 signatures from mental health professionals, students, and organizations.

———————

Psychology Today

DSM-5 in Distress

The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.

Why Psychiatrists Should Sign the Petition to Reform DSM 5 the fight for the future of psychiatry

Allen J. Frances, MD | November 4, 2011

Psychiatrists may be more reluctant than are other mental health clinicians to sign a petition questioning the safety and value of DSM 5. After all, it is the American Psychiatric Association that is sponsoring DSM 5 and there is a natural tendency to want to trust the wisdom of one’s own Association. We also tend to feel the greatest loyalty to our profession when it seems to be under sharp attack from without.

All this is completely understandable to me. I have not felt the least bit comfortable assuming the role fate assigned me as critic of DSM 5 and of the APA. It was a case of responsibility calling and my feeling compelled to answer. If DSM 5 were not proposing some really dangerous changes, I would have stayed comfortably on the sidelines. But I think DSM 5 is too risky to ignore and that all psychiatrists should feel the same call that I did to restrain it before it is too late.

Read full commentary

also on Psychiatric Times (Registration for Psychiatric Times site required)

Why Psychiatrists Should Sign the Petition to Reform DSM 5

Allen J. Frances, MD | November 4, 2011

———————

More from Allen J Frances, MD

DSM5 in Distress

The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.

by Allen Frances, M.D.

Why Doesn’t DSM 5 Defend Itself?

Perhaps because no defense is possible

Allen J. Frances, MD | November 3, 2011

———————

Nature.com

Nature News

Mental-health guide accused of overreach

Dispute grows over revisions to diagnostic handbook.

Heidi Ledford | Published online November, 2 2011

Nature 479, 14 (2011) | doi:10.1038/479014a

Corrected online: 3 November 2011

Psychologist David Elkins had modest ambitions for his petition. He and his colleagues were worried that proposed changes to an influential handbook of mental disorders could classify normal behaviours as psychological conditions, potentially leading to inappropriate treatments. So they laid out their concerns in an open letter, co-sponsored by five divisions of the American Psychological Association in Washington DC. “I thought, ‘Well, maybe we’ll get a couple or maybe 30 signatures’,” says Elkins, an emeritus professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California.

But the letter, posted online on 22 October (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/), touched a nerve. Within 10 days more than 2,800 people had signed it, many identifying themselves as mental-health professionals…

Read full article

———————

Psychology Today Do the Right Thing

Thomas Plante, Ph.D., ABPP, is Professor of Psychology and Director of the Spirituality and Health Institute at Santa Clara University

All the Fuss with DSM-5: The Ethics of the Psychiatric Bible Is DSM5 sacred scripture?

Thomas G. Plante, Ph.D | November 1, 2011

There has been a great deal of controversy already about DSM5 and it isn’t scheduled to be published until May 2013! So, what’s up with that?

You may have heard of some of the controversy surrounding the new edition of the DSM, the “psychiatric bible,” published periodically by the American Psychiatric Association. It is the “go to” document that defines all mental health disorders and is used for diagnosis, treatment approaches, and perhaps most especially, for insurance coverage and reimbursement for professional psychiatric services. If you are a mental health professional or a patient of a mental health professional, this is an important document…

Read full commentary

———————

A sixth commentary from Allen J Frances 

(Registration for Psychiatric Times site required)

Psychiatric Times

DSM-5 Will Not Be Credible Without An Independent Scientific Review

Allen J Frances, MD | November 2, 2011

After all this controversy and opposition, there is one thing (and one thing only) that will save the credibility of DSM-5 and guarantee its safety – a credible process of external scientific review. APA is conducting its own internal scientific review, but it strikes out badly on all 4 requirements that must be met before a review deserves to be taken seriously as a trustworthy stamp of approval…

Read full text

———————

A fifth commentary from Allen J Frances 

Psychology Today

Blogs

DSM5 in Distress

The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.

Dr Frances was Chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine

DSM 5 Against Everyone Else Its Research Types Just Don’t Understand The Clinical World

Allen J Frances, MD | DSM5 in Distress | November 1, 2011

also at

Psychiatric Times

(Registration for Psychiatric Times site required)

DSM-5 Against Everyone Else: Research Types Just Don’t Understand The Clinical World

Allen J Frances, MD  | November 1, 2011

———————

Psychology Today

Blogs

Side Effects

From quirky to serious, trends in psychology and psychiatry.

by Christopher Lane, Ph.D.

Saving Psychiatry from Itself: The DSM-5 Controversy Heats Up Again

Why an Open Letter to the DSM-5 task force is generating widespread interest

Christopher Lane, PhD | October 31, 2011

Last weekend, without any fanfare or publicity, the Society for Humanistic Psychology, a division of the American Psychological Association, posted an open letter to the DSM-5 task force listing in precise, scholarly detail its many concerns about the edition’s working assumptions, procedures, and recommendations. Three other APA Divisions supported the move, which also was endorsed by the Association for Women in Psychology, the Society for Descriptive Psychology, and the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP).

In the space of just a week, the open letter has caught fire…

Read full commentary

———————

A fourth commentary from Allen J Frances 

Dr Frances was Chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine

Psychology Today

What Would A Useful DSM 5 Look Like? And An Update On The Petition Drive

Allen J Frances, MD | DSM5 in Distress | October 31, 2011

The petition to reform DSM 5 continues to gain momentum. After just one week, more than 2000 people have expressed their disapproval of the DSM 5 proposals and their desire to see dramatic changes. You can join them at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/.

Read full commentary

———————

The Constructivist Psychology Network | October 30, 2011

CPN Supports DSM-5 Petition 

The Constructivist Psychology Network has signed a petition supporting an open letter by psychologists to the DSM-5 task force. The open letter objects to many of the proposed revisions being considered by the for inclusion in its forthcoming DSM-5.

Read full statement

———————

Psychology Today

Rethinking Depression

How to shed mental health labels and create personal meaning

by Eric Maisel, Ph.D. | October 28, 2011

The DSM-5 Controversy

———————

The UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP)

UKCP signs an online petition about DSM-5 | October 26, 2011

UKCP has signed an online petition which expresses serious reservations about the proposed content of the future DSM-5. In the latest issue of The Psychotherapist (issue 49, autumn 2011), Tom Warnecke explains the controversy surrounding the forthcoming fifth edition of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)…

Read full text

PDF The Psychotherapist (issue 49, autumn 2011) , Page 24, Mass psychosis or the brave new world of DSM-5: Tom Warnecke

———————

A second blog from Karen Franklin

Forensic Psychologist

Karen Franklin Ph.D. | October 27, 2011

DSM-5 petition takes off like wildfire

Karen Franklin, Ph.D. is a forensic psychologist and adjunct professor at Alliant University in Northern California.

———————

A second commentary  from Allen J Frances 

Psychiatric Times

DSM-5 Blog

Petition Against DSM-5 Gets Off To Racing Start: A Game Changer?

By Allen J Frances, MD | October 26, 2011

Dr Frances was Chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine

(Registration for Psychiatric Times site required)

also at Psychology Today | October 27, 2011

The Petition Against DSM 5 Gets Off To Fast Start

Could It Be A Game Changer

———————

Counseling Today

Psychologists circulate petition against DSM-5 revisions

CT Daily | October 24, 2011

Heather Rudow

———————

Britsh Psychological Society (BPS)

Psychologists petition against DSM-5 | October 25, 2011

———————

Psychology Today

DSM-5 in Distress

Dr Allen Frances

Psychologists Petition Against DSM-5: Users Revolt Should Capture APA Attention

By Allen J Frances, MD | October 24, 2011

Dr Frances was Chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine

also (with registered access) same text at Psychiatric Times 

———————

Forensic Psychologist

Karen Franklin, Ph.D. | October 23, 2011

Psychology coalition urges rethinking of DSM-5 expansions

Karen Franklin, Ph.D. is a forensic psychologist and adjunct professor at Alliant University in Northern California.

Dr Franklin also blogs at Psychology Today Witness, A blog about forensic psychology

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), Coalition for DSM-5 Reform, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 consultation, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-V, Psychiatric Times, Somatic Symptom Disorder, Somatoform Disorders

Coding CFS in ICD-10-CM: CFSAC and the Coalition4ME/CFS initiative

October 20, 2011 by

Coding CFS in ICD-10-CM: CFSAC and the Coalition4ME/CFS initiative

Post #102 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1hd

Coalition4ME/CFS initiative

ICD-10-CM

 

CFSAC discusses ICD-10-CM coding concerns

The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services via the Assistant Secretary for Health of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on issues related to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).

Go here for the current Roster of Voting and Ex Officio committee members.

CFSAC holds twice yearly public meetings and meeting Agendas, Minutes, Meeting Materials, Presentations, Public Testimonies, Meeting Videocasts and CFSAC’s Recommendations to the DHHS are published on the CFSAC website.

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the Federal agency responsible for use of the WHO’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10) in the United States, has developed a clinical modification of the classification for morbidity purposes. The ICD-10 is used to code and classify mortality data from death certificates, having replaced ICD-9 for this purpose as of January 1, 1999.

The WHO has authorized the development of an adaptation of ICD-10 for use in the United States for U.S. government purposes. Although a U.S. specific adaptation, with U.S. committees and technical advisory panels responsible for its development and oversight, all modifications to the ICD-10 must conform to WHO ICD conventions.

ICD-10-CM is planned as the replacement for ICD-9-CM, volumes 1 and 2.

U.S. lags behind

While much of the world has been using the ICD-10 for many years and is looking to move onto ICD-11 (currently  scheduled for implementation in 2015), the U.S. has been slow to make the transition from ICD-9-CM to a “clinical modification” of ICD-10.

ICD-10-CM development has been a long drawn out process and ICD-10-CM isn’t scheduled for implementation until October 1, 2013.

So when U.S. coders, clinicians, medical insurers and reimbursers are adapting to using ICD-10-CM, much of the rest of the world will be gearing up for ICD-11, which is planned to be a significantly different product to ICD-10, in terms of its structure, content, presentation, accessibility and its capacity, as an electronic publication, for continuous update and revision.

 

CFSAC new Recommendation to HHS

At the last CFSAC meeting (May 10-11, 2011), an hour long slot had been tabled on the agenda for Day One for discussion of concerns around the NCHS’s current proposals for the coding of CFS within ICD-10-CM.

The Committee was also informed of the considerable concerns for the implications for CFS and ME patients of the draft criteria and new categories being proposed by the DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorders” work group.

A new CFSAC Recommendation to HHS was proposed by Committee member, Dr Lenny Jason, seconded by Dr Nancy Klimas, and voted unanimously in favour of by the Committee [1].

This new Recommendation, set out below, restates and expands on the Recommendation that CFSAC had made to HHS, in August 2005.

CFSAC rejects current proposals to code CFS in Chapter 18 of ICD-10-CM under R53.82: Chronic fatigue, unspecified > Chronic fatigue syndrome NOS. CFSAC continues to recommend that CFS should be classified in ICD-10-CM in Chapter 6 under “diseases of the nervous system” at G93.3, in line with ICD-10 and ICD-10-CA (the Canadian Clinical Modification), and in accordance with the Committee’s recommendations of August 2005. CFSAC considers CFS to be a multi-system disease and rejects any proposals to classify CFS as a psychiatric condition in US disease classification systems. (Note: no disease classification system under HHS’ control proposes to move or to include CFS in or among psychiatric conditions.)     Source: CFSAC Recommendations – May 10-11, 2011

 

What are the current proposals?

For ICD-10-CM, the current proposals for the classification of PVFS and ME are:

that Postviral fatigue syndrome would be classified within Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system under the parent class “G93 Other disorders of brain”, coded at G93.3.

(Benign) Myalgic encephalomyelitis would be classified as an Inclusion term under Title category “G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome”.

This is in keeping with the international ICD-10, from which ICD-10-CM has been developed. See Footnote [4] for link to page setting out current proposals for ICD-10-CM.

In ICD-10, Chronic fatigue syndrome is indexed to G93.3 in Volume 3 The Alphabetical Index. 

In ICD-10-CA, the Canadian Clinical Modification of ICD-10, Chronic fatigue syndrome is classified in the Tabular List in Chapter 6, under “G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome”.

For ICD-11, the proposal is that all three terms should be classified within Chapter 6.

But for ICD-10-CM, instead of coding Chronic fatigue syndrome to G93.3, the proposal is  to retain Chronic fatigue syndrome in the R codes chapter (which is Chapter 16 in ICD-9-CM and will be Chapter 18 in ICD-10-CM), where it would be coded thus:

Chapter 18  (Symptoms and signs and ill defined conditions)

[…]

R53.8 Other malaise and fatigue

R53 Malaise and fatigue

R53.82 Chronic fatigue, unspecified
              Chronic fatigue syndrome (NOS)

Excludes1: postviral fatigue syndrome (G93.3)

(In ICD, NOS stands for “Not Otherwise Specified”.)

 

What is NCHS’s rationale for retaining CFS as (CFS NOS) in the R code chapter?

According to the background document Dr Wanda Jones presented to the Committee:

As it relates to CFS the use of two codes is consistent with the classification as there would be a code to capture CFS when the physician has determined the cause as being due to a past viral infection (G93.3) or if the physician has not established a link with a past viral infection (R53.82).

If code R53.82 were eliminated it would not be possible to disaggregate cases that are now distinguishable through the use of two codes.

There is a general equivalence map between ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes, however, if a concept is not carried over from the earlier version to the newer version data will be lost going forward.

Source: Extract: ICD-related questions from CFSAC for May 2011 meeting

 
Dr. Jones clarified for the Committee that if, in the clinician’s judgment, it was considered there is enough evidence to attribute the patient’s illness to a viral illness onset then the clinician could code to G93.3 (Postviral fatigue syndrome). If “however they could not identify where the trajectory developed toward CFS, then it would wind up in the R codes.” [1]
 
It has been further confirmed that testing for a viral illness is not required to assign a code – that coding is based on the clinician’s judgment.
 
And from the NCHS September 14 meeting Proposals document:
In ICD-10-CM chronic fatigue syndrome NOS (that is not specified as being due to a past viral infection) was added to ICD-10-CM in Chapter 18 at R53.82, Chronic fatigue, unspecified. ICD-10-CM retained code G93.3 to allow the differentiation of cases of fatigue syndrome where the physician has determined the cause as being due to a past viral infection from cases where the physician has not established a post viral link. It should be noted that including chronic fatigue syndrome NOS at code G93.3 would make it difficult to disaggregate cases that are now distinguishable through the use of two separate codes.
 

Is this a new proposal?

No. This is a long-standing proposal that had been known about since at least 2007. It has been discussed on forums and raised in mailings on the Co-Cure Listserv list in 2007 and 2008 by U.S. advocates Mary Schweitzer and Jean Harrison, and flagged up by others in the U.S. and elsewhere, in the last couple of years.

The proposed coding of CFS, PVFS and (B) ME in the forthcoming ICD-10-CM had already been discussed at public CFSAC meetings in June 2004, when the NCHS’s, Donna Pickett, had given a presentation and again in September 2004, January 2005 and May 2010.

So the proposed coding of PVFS, (B) ME and CFS for ICD-10-CM is by no means a new issue.

As noted, ICD-10-CM has been under development for many years. A public comment period ran from December 1997 through February 1998. In 2001, the proposal had been that all three terms should be coded to G93.3, in keeping with the placement in the WHO’s ICD-10 [2].

I am advised that at one point, all three terms: PVFS, (B) ME and CFS, were proposed to be coded under G93.3, with a “CFS NOS” retained in the R codes. But that subsequently, the placement of CFS in Chapter 6 under the G93 parent class was deleted, leaving “CFS NOS” orphaned, in Chapter 18.

 

What is the ICD “R code” chapter for?

There is a four page ICD-11 Discussion Document that is worth a read: Signs and Symptoms [Considerations for handling categories and concepts currently found in chapter 18 of ICD-10, “SYMPTOMS, SIGNS AND ABNORMAL CLINICAL AND
LABORATORY FINDINGS NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED”, (R-codes), authors: Aymé, Chalmers, Chute, Jakob.] Open here: Discussion: Signs and Symptoms (Chapter 18)

The R codes chapter is the ICD chapter for “Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified (R00-R99)”

“This chapter includes symptoms, signs, abnormal results of clinical or other investigative procedures, and ill defined conditions regarding which no diagnosis classifiable elsewhere is recorded.” Source: ICD-10-CM Chapter 18, 2011 release.

 

Dustbin Diagnosis

At the May CFSAC meeting, Committee member, Steven Krafchick, a medical and disability attorney, raised his considerable concerns for the legal and medical insurance ramifications of coding CFS under the “R codes” at the May CFSAC meeting [1]. 

Coding CFS under R53.82 for “non viral onset” cases will consign patients to a dustbin diagnosis that will continue to confuse and conflate Chronic fatigue syndrome with Chronic fatigue. There are no certainties that clinicians will code new cases using the unfamiliar G93.3 PVFS and ME codes or that existing CFS patients will get “upgraded” to G93.3 ME.

Coding CFS under R53.82 under ill defined conditions will make patients more vulnerable to the proposals of the APA’s DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group.

Coding CFS under R53.82 will render ICD-10-CM out of line with at least four versions of ICD-10, including Canada’s ICD-10-CA, which has all three terms classified in the Tabular List under G93.3, and out of line with proposals for the forthcoming ICD-11, scheduled for implementation in 2015. The U.S. would be the only country with CFS coded in the R codes.

 

ICD-10-CM CFS CF

 

Have representations been made to the NCHS Committee?

Although representations around the coding of CFS for ICD-10-CM have been made to CDC over the years, no stakeholder representations at NCHS meetings are recorded.

At the May CFSAC meeting, Dr Jones informed the Committee that the ICD-CM process is a public process and that there is an opportunity to input into the update of ICD-9-CM and development of ICD-10-CM as part of that process, and to engage with the NCHS Committee via regularly scheduled public meetings. Dr Jones confirmed that NCHS has stated that there has been no public presence from the CFS community at these meetings.
 
It was established during the May meeting that the deadline for submitting representations for new inclusions or modifications to existing proposals for ICD-10-CM for tabling for discussion at the next NCHS Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting would close on July 15, for a meeting scheduled for September 14. It was further noted this would be the last meeting before implementation of the partial code freeze and that this was therefore a time sensitive issue.
 
Committee members discussed the potential for a representative of CFSAC attending the September 14 ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting if it were permissible for CFSAC to give public testimony to another advisory body; Dr Jones stated that she would check the rules. Medical attorney, Steven Krafchick, had been particularly keen to see this suggestion taken forward.

 

Coalition4ME/CFS initiative

In a Press Release dated September 12, 2011, the Coalition4ME/CFS, which comprises a number of US 501 (c)(3) registered ME and CFS organizations, announced that the Coalition had submitted a representation to NCHS in July.

The Coalition had set out its proposals and a rationale in a 48 page letter dated July 14 and had been successful in getting the issue of the proposed coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM placed on the agenda for the September 14 meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee. 

Mary Dimmock and Marly Silverman attended the September meeting and presented the Coalition’s proposal and rationale to the NCHS. The NCHS presented an alternative suggestion to the current proposal for the coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM on which stakeholders may also wish to submit comment.

The Coalition4ME/CFS’s materials can be found here:

 

http://coalition4mecfs.org/ICDPR.html

There are a quite a number of background documents on the Coalition’s site and you may want to start with the Coalition’s Summary and Overview document.

You’ll also find the Coalition’s Press Release, ICD FAQ, Coalition Proposal, ICD Presentation (PPT), ME-ICC Update, ICD Meeting Update, IACFS Conference info and an ICD Sample Letter (a template for submitting comment to NCHS in support of the Coalition’s proposals).

 

What is the Coalition4ME/CFS proposing?

The Coalition proposes that for ICD-10-CM, Chronic fatigue syndrome (currently coded as “Chronic fatigue syndrome NOS”) should be deleted from Chapter 18: R53.82 Malaise and fatigue and instead, classified within Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system under the parent class G93 Other diseases of brain, under the Title term G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome, under which code Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis is proposed to be classified.

• This would bring the US specific ICD-10-CM in line with international ICD-10 (in which CFS is indexed to G93.3) and ICD-10-CA (Canada), where all three terms are classsified within the ICD-10-CA Tabular List under G93.3.

• This would reflect the CFSAC Committee’s Recommendation to HHS of May 2011 which had prompted the Coalition’s initiative.

• This would bring ICD-10-CM in line with ICD-11, for which it is proposed that all three terms are classified in Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system.

I shall be setting out the various proposals in a forthcoming post.

 

September 14 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting

The CDC webpage for the development of ICD-10-CM is here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10cm.htm

The 2011 release for the draft ICD-10-CM is available from the page above under this section of the page. Note that although this release of ICD-10-CM is available for public viewing, the codes in ICD-10-CM are not currently valid for any purpose or use. The most recent update to the draft, the “2011 release of ICD-10-CM” replaces the December 2010 release.

The CDC webpage for the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee remit, meeting schedules and meeting documentation is here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9cm_maintenance.htm

The ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee is a Federal Committee; suggestions for new inclusions to ICD-9-CM and modifications to proposals for the forthcoming ICD-10-CM come from both the public and private sectors.  Interested parties and stakeholders are required to submit proposals for modification prior to a scheduled meeting.

These twice yearly meetings are held as public fora to discuss proposed modifications to ICD-9-CM and proposals for ICD-10-CM and a number of proposals and modifications around other diseases and disorders had been tabled for discussion on September 14, in addition to the issue of the coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM.

Meeting presentation

Mary Dimmock (who prepared the proposal) and Marly Silverman (PANDORA founder and Coalition4ME/CFS steering committee member) presented on behalf of the Coalition at the NCHS’s September 14 meeting.

At the meeting, the NCHS had presented an alternative suggestion to the current proposal for the coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM which suggested coding (B) ME and CFS under two separate sub codes (G93.31 and G93.32) under a revised G93.3 parent “G93.3 Postviral and other chronic fatigue syndromes” (a not entirely satisfactory suggestion that I shall set out in full in a forthcoming post). I shall be posting extracts from the two NCHS meeting Proposals and Summary documents where they relate to the issue of the coding of CFS in the next post, and you can download the entire documents from the links below.

 
You can download an Audio of the September 14 NCHS meeting here: http://www.cms.gov/ICD9ProviderDiagnosticCodes/Downloads/091411_Meeting_Audio.zip

[Note this is a large Zipped file.  The section for discussions on CFS coding starts at 2 hours 27 minutes in from start and ends at 3 hours 02 minutes.]

The NCHS Committee’s Summary of the proceedings of this meeting can be downloaded here: Summary September 14, 2011. See Page 2.

The CDC site says, “Note: This document was re-posted, changes are on page 2, bullet 2, bolded.  If you downloaded the previous document you will need to download this updated document.”

The NCHS Committee’s Proposals document is here:  Proposals September 14, 2011. See Pages 10-11.

The CDC site says, “Note: This document was re-posted, if you downloaded the previous document you will need to download this updated document.”

 

What’s the deadline for comments and where do I send them?

The closing date for submitting comments to NCHS on the proposals is Friday, November 18.

Comments from stakeholders, preferably via email, should be submitted to:

Donna Pickett RHIA, MPH
Medical Classification Administrator
National Center for Health Statistics – CDC
3311Toledo Road Hyattsville, MD 20782
Via email: nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov

 

Coming up…

In upcoming posts I’ll be setting out the various proposals and the NCHS’s suggestion, for ease of comparison, and a posting by Mary Schweitzer around ICD-10-CM.

 

Footnotes and related postings:

1] Minutes of May 10-11 2011 CFSAC meeting (Extract: Discussion of concerns re coding of CFS for ICD-10-CM)

2]  A Summary of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Its Classification in the International Classification of Diseases CDC, 2001.

3] CFS orphaned in the “R” codes in US specific ICD-10-CM

4] Forthcoming US “Clinical Modification” ICD-10-CM (starts half way down page)

5] I have written to the CDC’s, Donna Pickett, to request that consideration is given to posting stand alone PDFs of the draft Tabular List and Index. (At the moment, these two documents require extraction or opening in situ from a 14 MB Zipped file which contains five PDFs, which include the ICD-10-CM Tabular List and the Alphabetical Index.)

To view or download the Tabular List and Alphabetical Index for the 2011 release of ICD-10-CM:

Go to: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10cm.htm#10update

Heading: ICD-10-CM Files – 2011 release

Click on: ICD-10-CM PDF Format for which the URL is

ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Publications/ICD10CM/2011/

Open or save this directory file:

12/20/2010 08:40AM    14,131,267    icd10_cm_pdf.zip

contains 5 PDF files, which include the Tabular List (7.8 MB) and the Alphabetical Index (4.7 MB) which can be viewed in situ or saved to hard drive.

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), CFSAC meetings, Clinical Modification, Coalition4ME/CFS, DSM revision process, ICD revision process, ICD-10, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11, ICD-11 Alpha Draft, WHO (World Health Organization), WHO Collaborating Centre

Next CFSAC meeting, Tuesday 8 and Wednesday 9 November (US)

October 18, 2011 by

Next CFSAC meeting, Tuesday 8 and Wednesday 9 November (US)

Post #101 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1gZ

Update @ October 19, 2011

An expanded version of the email I received from Mr Emmett Nixon on October 14 has now been posted on the CFSAC site at http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/notices/n101811.html which includes the following:

“We will provide a video recording of the meeting on the CFSAC webpage, http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs, which will be posted within one week of the meeting. This recording will be compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and will include captions.”

**********************************************************************************************

Fall CFSAC meeting

The Federal Notice announcing dates for the Fall Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) meeting was issued on October 5, 2011 and can be read here Federal Notice. At the time of publishing, an agenda for this meeting has yet to be released. I will update when the agenda has been published.

Custom TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/November2011CFSAC

The two day meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2011 and Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at a new venue – the Holiday Inn Capitol, Columbia Room, 550 C Street, SW., Washington, DC.

Since May 2009, the entire meeting proceedings have been streamed as live video with videocasts posted online a few days after the meeting has closed. For the November meeting, CFSAC has stated that only a live audio feed will be provided rather than real-time visuals and auto subtitling and that a high quality video will be provided at a later date.

The Federal Notice can be read below and beneath that, a clarification received on October 14, from Mr Emmett Nixon (HHS/OAHS), CFSAC Support Team.

Meeting of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee

A Notice by the Health and Human Services Department on 10/05/2011

Summary

As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) will hold a meeting. The meeting will be open to the public.

Table of Contents

DATES:
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DATES:

The meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2011 and Wednesday, November 9, 2011. The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on November 8, 2011, and 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on November 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES:

Holiday Inn Capitol; Columbia Room; 550 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024; Hotel (202-479-4000).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy C. Lee, MD; Designated Federal Officer, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee, Department of Health and Human Services; 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Hubert Humphrey Building, Room 712E; Washington, DC 20201. Please direct all inquiries to cfsac@hhs.gov .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

CFSAC was established on September 5, 2002. The Committee shall advise and make recommendations to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on a broad range of topics including (1) The current state of knowledge and research and the relevant gaps in knowledge and research about the epidemiology, etiologies, biomarkers and risk factors relating to CFS, and identifying potential opportunities in these areas; (2) impact and implications of current and proposed diagnosis and treatment methods for CFS; (3) development and implementation of programs to inform the public, health care professionals, and the biomedical academic and research communities about CFS advances; and (4) partnering to improve the quality of life of CFS patients.

The agenda for this meeting is being developed. The agenda will be posted on the CFSAC Web site, http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs , when it is finalized. The meeting will be recorded and archived for on-demand viewing through the CFSAC Web site. It will be available by audio on both days and the call-in numbers will be posted on the CFSAC Web site.

Public attendance at the meeting is open. Those attending the meeting will need to sign-in prior to entering the meeting room. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact person at cfsac@hhs.gov in advance.

Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide oral testimony on both days of the meeting; pre-registration for oral testimony is required. Individuals who wish to address the Committee during the public comment session must pre-register by Wednesday, October 26, 2011, via e-mail to cfsac@hhs.gov. Time slots for public comment will be available on a first-come, first-served basis and will be limited to five minutes per speaker; no exceptions will be made. Priority will be given to individuals who have not presented public comment at previous CFSAC meetings. Individuals registering for public comment should submit a copy of their oral testimony in advance to cfsac@hhs.gov, prior to the close of business on Wednesday, October 26, 2011. If you wish to remain anonymous, please notify the CFSAC support team staff upon submission of your materials to cfsac@hhs.gov.

If you do not submit your written testimony by the close of business Wednesday, October 26, 2011, you may bring a copy to the meeting and present it to a CFSAC support team staff member. Your testimony will be included in a notebook available for viewing by the public on a table at the back of the meeting room.

Individuals who do not provide public comment at the meeting, but who wish to have printed material distributed to CFSAC members for review should submit, at a minimum, one copy of the material to the Designated Federal Officer at cfsac@hhs.gov prior to close of business on Wednesday, October 26, 2011. Submitted documents should be limited to five typewritten pages. If you wish to remain anonymous, please notify the CFSAC support team staff upon submitting your materials to cfsac@hhs.gov .

All testimony and printed material submitted for the meeting are part of the official meeting record and will be uploaded to the CFSAC Web site; this material will be made available for public inspection. Testimony and materials submitted should not include any sensitive personal information, such as a person’s social security number; date of birth; driver’s license number, State identification number or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. Sensitive health information, such as medical records or other personal identifiable health information, or any non-public corporate or trade association information, such as trade secrets or other proprietary information also should be excluded from any materials submitted.

Dated: September 30, 2011.

Nancy C. Lee,

Designated Federal Officer, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee.

[FR Doc. 2011-25739 Filed 10-4-11; 8:45 am]

On October 14, I received the following clarifications from Mr Emmett Nixon, (HHS/OAHS) CFSAC Support Team, in response to queries first raised with Dr Nancy Lee, on October 11, concerning the arrangements for the recording and streaming of this meeting and the rationale behind the change of venue.

Mr Nixon’s response (October 14, 2011):

“We have heard concerns about changes we have made in the venue and the format of the upcoming 2011 November Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee meeting. Below we provide additional details about the meeting.

“We are working diligently to address major shifts in budget restrictions and protecting the personal safety of the public attending the meeting. We have moved the Fall CFSAC meeting to the Holiday Inn 550 C. St. SW, Columbia Room, Washington, D.C. 20024. This change was made because the HHS Humphrey Building Room 800 cannot accommodate more than 50 persons, and we are required to escort all persons attending the meeting due to security measures in place. The Columbia room at the Holiday inn holds a maximum of 300 people and provides an opportunity for the public to move freely about the hotel, rest in their rooms and use open hotel areas including the hotel cafeteria and restaurant. HHS will continue to provide a quiet area in the rear of the Columbia room to accommodate those needing a place to rest. HHS will not provide any medical services.

“There will be a live audio link to the two day meeting, which allows listeners to hear the entire meeting in real time. Due to budgetary considerations, we are unable to provide a live-video cast as previously arranged. We will provide a video recording of the meeting on the CFSAC webpage http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/ . This recording will provide a higher quality video at substantially lower cost.

“Time slots for public testimony will be available on a first-come, first-served basis and limited to five minutes per speaker. Priority will be given to individuals who have not given public testimony in previous meetings. Three hours have been allotted for public testimony. As before, we will accommodate persons who want to provide their testimony by telephone.

“The CFSAC Support Team”

On October 17, I wrote again to Mr Nixon, CC Dr Nancy Lee and Dr Chris Snell, Chair, CFSAC Committee, requesting that the decision not to provide live video streaming be reviewed, citing the issue of accessability to a public meeting by a patient group with disabilities, sensory processing difficulties and cognitive impairment and that a precedent had been set in May 2009 when video streaming was introduced for these meetings, which are viewed live not just in the US, but internationally.

In raising this issue with CFSAC Support Team, I have presented my concerns as an individual and have no connection with any other initiatives or approaches that might be being made to the Committee in respect of similar concerns over the arrangements for this November meeting.

Related material

Minutes of May 10-11 2011 CFSAC meeting (Discussion of coding of CFS for ICD-10-CM)

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), CFSAC meetings, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 in the media, ICD-10, ICD-10-CM, Somatic Symptom Disorder, WHO (World Health Organization)

Minutes of May 10-11 2011 CFSAC meeting (Discussion of coding of CFS for ICD-10-CM)

October 18, 2011 by

Minutes of May 10-11 2011 CFSAC meeting (Discussion of coding of CFS for ICD-10-CM)

Post #100 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1gv

The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services via the Assistant Secretary for Health of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on issues related to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). These include:

• factors affecting access and care for persons with CFS;

• the science and definition of CFS; and

• broader public health, clinical, research and educational issues related to CFS.

Administrative and management support for CFSAC activities is provided by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH). However, staffing will continue to be provided primarily from the Office on Women’s Health, which is part of OASH.

Dr. Nancy C. Lee, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health – Women’s Health, is the Designated Federal Officer for CFSAC.

The Spring meeting of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) was held on May 10-11, 2011 in Room 800, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Ave, S.W., Washington, D.C.

The Fall meeting has been announced for Tuesday, November 8 and Wednesday, November 9 but will be located in a different venue. The November meeting will be hosted at the Holiday Inn Capitol, Columbia Room, 550 C Street, SW., Washington, D.C. See next post for Federal Notice. At the time of publication, no agenda for the Fall meeting has been issued.

Minutes Day One and Two Spring 2011 meeting from this page: Minutes May 10-11 CFSAC

Presentations Day One and Two: Presentations and Meeting Materials

Public and Written Testimonies here: Public Testimonies

Recommendations approved from Spring meeting: Recommendations CFSAC May 10-11

Videocasts of the entire two day proceedings can be viewed here: Videocasts Day One and Two

Current Roster     CFSAC Charter

 

Discussion of ICD-10-CM and DSM-5 at the May CFSAC meeting

Of particular interest to the scope of this site was the Agenda item on Day One at 1:15 p.m.

Discussion of International Classification of Diseases-Clinical Modification (ICD-CM) concerns
Committee Members

Dr Wanda Jones, outgoing Designated Federal Officer for CFSAC, had invited a representative from the National Center for Health Statistics to attend the meeting, though no-one had been available for that date.

Instead, Dr Jones presented Committee members with a four page document ICD-related questions from CFSAC for May 2011 meeting as background information.

The document, which can be downloaded in PDF format here, set out responses to the following questions:

What are the key steps in development of the ICD-10-CM?
How does the ICD-CM (whatever version, -9, -10, etc.) align with past and current versions of the -CM and with the WHO’s current and past versions?
How is the ICD-CM used in policy-related decision making?
What difference does coding designation make? How do we get providers to use a particular code–is it an issue of education, of outreach, or what? If codes related to CFS are in several different places, doesn’t that affect the count? And finally, if the codes change, do we lose the numbers from the prior coding systems?
How does ICD coding relate to DSM coding (or does it)?
Partial List of Organizations Consulted and/or Reviewing ICD-10-CM During Development and Ongoing Maintenance of ICD-10-CM

 

CFSAC Recommendations – May 10-11, 2011

Following a 45 minute discussion of the forthcoming partial code freeze, the implications for CFS and ME patients of current proposals for ICD-10-CM and in the context of draft proposals by the DSM-5 Work Group for “Somatic Symptoms Disorders”, a new Recommendation was proposed by Dr Lenny Jason, seconded by Dr Nancy Klimas, and voted unanimously in favour of by the Committee.

The specific recommendation articulated by the Committee in respect of the agenda item above was:

1. CFSAC rejects current proposals to code CFS in Chapter 18 of ICD-10-CM under R53.82: Chronic fatigue, unspecified > Chronic fatigue syndrome NOS. CFSAC continues to recommend that CFS should be classified in ICD-10-CM in Chapter 6 under “diseases of the nervous system” at G93.3, in line with ICD-10 and ICD-10-CA (the Canadian Clinical Modification), and in accordance with the Committee’s recommendations of August 2005. CFSAC considers CFS to be a multi-system disease and rejects any proposals to classify CFS as a psychiatric condition in US disease classification systems. (Note: no disease classification system under HHS’ control proposes to move or to include CFS in or among psychiatric conditions.)

Information on the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee September 2011 meeting referred to by Dr Jones, in the Minutes, can be found on this page.

Information of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) draft due for implementation in October 2013 can be found on this page.

Video of this section of the meeting can be viewed here at Videocast Day One at 4hrs 27 mins in from start of broadcast.

I should like to thank Dr Lenny Jason, whose term as a CFSAC Committee member ends following the November meeting, for informing the Committee around current proposals for the forthcoming ICD-10-CM, on the classification of PVFS, ME and CFS in ICD-10 and on the development of ICD-11 and for also raising with the Committee concerns around DSM-5, an issue that had not previously been discussed in any depth at a CFSAC meeting.

Extract (Pages 26-29) Minutes May 10-11 CFSAC

DISCUSSION OF INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES – CLINICAL MODIFICATION (ICD-CM) CONCERNS

Dr. Christopher Snell

• Brought the meeting to order. Noted they would have a discussion of the ICD-related questions and the proposed reclassification of chronic fatigue syndrome.

• Advised there was a page in the members’ notebooks tabbed after the State of the Knowledge summary which noted key steps in the development of the ICD 10 CM, so a clinical modification of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) ICD 10. It would replace ICD 9.

• Stated his understanding of the issues:

o Disconnect between the way the U.S. uses the classification and the rest of the world.
o The way CFS is classified under the ICD system has implications for both reporting of incidents, morbidity and mortality.
o Used by outside agencies to categorize the illness for purposes of inclusion or exclusion. Opened the floor for discussion.

Dr. Wanda Jones

• Clarified that the committee requested that the National Center for Health Statistics have someone to talk to them about the international classification of diseases, about the process, about how the U.S. adapts the WHO index, ( the ICD) for use and about opportunities for dialogue.

• Noted that a meeting was set a year ago for May 10 and 11 in Baltimore that engaged resources of CMS, parts of the federal government focused on health IT and the entire ICD team from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).

• Noted that as a result no one was available for the CFSAC meeting.

Page 27 of 41

• In lieu of their attendance, she developed some questions that the NCHS, ICD team responded to.

• Tried to clarify the questions so they would have a good understanding of the key processes and the key inflection points differentiating the WHO process from the U.S. ICD-CM, the clinical modification process.

• Raised additional questions regarding how alignment from prior versions is maintained and how ICD coding is used in decision-making.

• Noted also the relationship between the coding and the diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM). Stated that the information was provided by the NCHS and is meant to generate discussion.

• Stated that the ICD-CM process is a public process with regularly scheduled public meetings. Noted that there is an opportunity to comment as part of that process and to engage.

• Confirmed that the NCHS stated that there has been no public presence from the CFS community at the meetings.

• Noted that this was the process for people interested in CFS coding to become involved. Confirmed that there was a lock procedure that is soon to be executed for the ICD 10 CM.

• Noted it had been in development for a decade and the United States’ move to electronic records means it has to temporarily lock the codes. The electronic health records software would not be ready if they keep changing them.

• Noted that information about coding changes would continue to be collected, taken under advisement and the NCHS would continue the process of evaluating.

• Stated that once it is in public use then that lock will release and there would be an opportunity on a periodic basis for updating.

Dr. Leonard Jason

• Stated that the committees are developing ICD 10 CM and it intends to retain CFS in R codes (R53.82) and this means that the symptoms, signs, abnormal results of clinical or other investigative procedures are ill-defined conditions.

• Stated that R-codes means it’s an ill-defined condition regarding which no diagnosis is classifiable elsewhere. Explained that if it cannot be diagnosed elsewhere in ICD 10 it goes into a R-code.

• The intention in ICD 11 is to put CFS with two other conditions (post viral fatigue syndrome and benign myalgic encephalomyalitus) under a G-code, being G93.3 or diseases of the nervous system. Noted that coding CFS under the R-code in the proposed ICD 10 CM would place it out of line with the International ICD 10 used in over 100 countries.

• Discussed the problems and implications of the U.S. coding of CFS as compared with how other countries are coding it.

Page 28 of 41

It would exclude it from the R53 malaise and fatigue codes, which would imply that CFS does not have a viral etiology.

• Brought forward a motion to be considered:

CFSAC rejects current proposals to code CFS in Chapter 18 of ICD 10 CM under R53.82 chronic fatigue syndrome unspecified, chronic fatigue syndrome NOS (not otherwise specified). CFSAC continues to recommend that CFS should be classified in the ICD 10 CM in Chapter 6 under diseases of the nervous system at G93.3 in line with international ICD 10 in ICD 10 CA which is the Canadian clinical modification and in accordance with the committee’s recommendation which we made in August of 2005. CFSAC considers CFS to be a multi-system disease and rejects any proposals to classify CFS as a psychiatric condition in U.S. disease classification systems.

• Noted that ME and CFS patients could be potentially vulnerable to the current DSM 5 proposals because those proposals are highly subjective and difficult to quantify.

• Noted that retaining the CFS in the R-codes in the IDC 10 CM differentiates the U.S. from other countries but it renders CFS and ME patients more vulnerable to some of the DSM 5 proposals, notably chronic complex symptom disorder [sic].  [Ed: Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder]

Dr. Klimas asked for clarification, and Dr. Jason said that in 2013 they would move from DSM 4 to DSM 5. As it stands they would be collapsing somatization disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, hypochondriasis and some presentations of panic disorder [sic] [Ed: pain disorder]  into complex somatic symptom disorder. Dr. Klimas clarified that his concern was that the CFS ICD 9 codes would put the non post viral patients into this somatoform cluster. Dr. Jason indicated that this was so.

Dr. Klimas seconded the motion. Mr. Krafchick agreed and stated that the ramifications of the classification would be disastrous for patients, because it would limit disability payments to two years. Dr. Jones clarified that for now the clock was ticking, however once the codes were released, they could be revised, it’s just the implementation of the electronic system which is causing it to be locked at a particular point in time. While CFSAC has shared concerns with NCHS, there is an official process for engaging with them on their discussions regarding the codes. The US was interested in morbidity, in case claims. It is important that providers know how to best categorize things, and provide guidance on which codes to consider based on the science for the disease being evaluated.

Mr. Krafchick stated that the issue was that the criteria for the codes was etiology/trigger based. Dr. Jones clarified that it would still remain in the clinician’s judgment, however if they could not identify where the trajectory developed toward CFS, then it would wind up in the R codes. Dr. Jones clarified also that the NCHS does not view the R category as a somatoform disorder. Mr. Krafchick and Dr. Snell indicated they understood this but it would still represent vulnerability for patients when classifying.

Dr. Jason restated his recommendation.

Page 29 of 41

Dr. Marshall stated his concern that there was an attendant risk with this, but that they were between a rock and a hard place. He agreed CFS/ME being classified as a somatoform disorder was inappropriate, but at the same time that the recommendation says it’s a complex multi-system disease, it categorizes it within a single nervous system disease silo. This might affect future research funding opportunities with people saying they don’t fund neurological research. He expressed the view that they should advocate for classification in a multi-system disease category rather than putting it in a nervous system disease category for future, though this category did not exist now. It would be a good thing for patients short term, but it could be a long term risk.

Dr. Snell said that given the amount of current funding, this wasn’t a risk. Dr. Marshall said that using reverse translational research as had been advocated during the meeting might increase the role of this categorization, and could be restrictive in funding.

Dr. Jones asked whether the recommendation being put forward was the same as the May 2010 recommendation, and Dr. Jason said that his was dramatically different. Mr. Krafchick underscored how the insurance companies use these ICD codes. If it was classified in something that could be psychiatric it will be psychiatric, so they can deny coverage.

Dr. Levine asked about co-morbid disorders and how these are weighted. Dr. Jones responded that she did not think that there was a weighting. It would get listed like a death certificate, a cause of death and then a secondary, sometimes a third. She stated it was the judgment of the clinician how it was listed.

Dr. Klimas expressed the view that coding was also problematic because clinicians code to get paid. There already exists a bias against coding CFS as CFS because the codes could not be used for billing. She stated that they would make a conscious decision not to code CFS as CFS. She indicated that neurology was a fine place for it to be categorized, and at least this would assist people who may be looking for patient data, as it wouldn’t be ignored.

Dr. Snell asked for a vote of all those in favor regarding Dr. Jason’s motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Dr. Jones noted that she would share this recommendation with the NCHS but repeated that unless someone moved forward to intervene in the official processes in the public record it may not move forward or have an effect.

Dr. Jones noted that the next ICD meeting is September 14 – 15, 2011 with public comments due July 15. Noted this will be put on the CFSAC website. She noted she would check the rules to see if a member of the CFSAC or the Chair would be able to give public testimony at another advisory committee meeting. Mr. Krafchick said that if it were possible to send someone as a member of the committee, it would make a great deal of sense and be very important. Dr. Jones said they would figure out how this could happen. Ms. Holderman asked whether this notice, and any future notices where they might want to intervene, could be placed on the CDC website. She stated this cross listing would be useful.

Page 30 of 41

Dr. Jones said that from her experience with the fast evolving HIV coding, there was a dialogue so that coding kept up. She expected there would be some connection, however not as comprehensive or active as that disease.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, a member of the public, stated that the NCHS did come to CFSAC in 2005 and Dr. Reeves at the time was specific and said that CFS needed to be in R53 due to his own method of diagnosis. She suggested that this showed an obvious connection between the CFS side of CDC and NCHS at the time.

[Extract from Minutes, CFSAC Day One: May 10, 2011 ends]

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), CFSAC meetings, Clinical Modification, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 consultation, DSM-5 draft proposals, ICD-10, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11 Alpha Draft, Somatic Symptom Disorder, Somatoform Disorders

Position statement on proposed coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM

September 25, 2011 by

Position statement on proposed coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM

Post #99 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1gh

25 September 2011

Since I continue to be misrepresented on at least one platform I am reluctantly publishing a public position statement.

ME agenda is the name of one of several WordPress sites that I own. The site name was registered with WordPress in 2007. ME agenda is also the username I use on Facebook, Twitter and on a number of other internet platforms.

Within the last few days, ME agenda has several times been referred to as “a group” on Phoenix Rising forum and elsewhere. I have already clarified that ME agenda is not a “group” nor any kind of organisation.

On the Disclaimer page of my Dx Revision Watch website it states:

“Dx Revision Watch is not an organisation.

“This site has no connection with and is not endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), American Psychiatric Publishing Inc., World Health Organisation (WHO) or any other organisation, institution, corporation or company.

“This site has no affiliations with any commercial or not-for-profit organisation. The site operates independently of any patient or advocacy organisation or group.

“This site does not accept advertising, sponsorship, funding or donations and has no commercial links with any organisation, institution, corporation, company or individual.”

On my ME agenda website Disclaimer page it also states:

“ME agenda is not an organisation.

“This site has no connection with and is not endorsed by any organisation, institution, corporation or company. The site has no affiliations with any commercial or not-for-profit organisation and operates independently of any patient or advocacy organisation or group.

“This site does not accept advertising, sponsorship, funding or donations and has no commercial links with any organisation, institution, corporation, company or individual.”

So ME agenda is not “a group”; does not function as “a group” nor as any form of organisation, and the name ME agenda and my websites are associated only with one individual – myself.

The advocacy work that I do under my own name and in association with the name ME agenda is undertaken as an individual with an interest in a specific health area, as a primary carer of a young adult. I do not claim a mandate to represent others and the views and opinions I hold are the views and opinions of a single individual.

I therefore request that neither I nor ME agenda nor my websites are referred to on any platform as “a group”, since this is erroneous and misrepresents me.

It has also been misstated on Phoenix Rising forum and elsewhere, that I am “trying to get CFS reclassified as ME.”

This is not the case and again, misrepresents my position.  My position is this:

I consider as an individual, not as any form of “group”, since I am not any form of “group”:

that it will hurt patients if Chronic fatigue syndrome is coded in ICD-10-CM under Chapter 18, the chapter for “Symptoms, signs and ill-defined conditions”, under “R53.82 Chronic fatigue, unspecified > Chronic fatigue syndrome NOS”;

that Chronic fatigue syndrome should be coded to the “G93” parent class, in line with ICD-10, ICD-10-CA (Canada) and ICD-10-GM (Germany), and in line with ICD-11 proposals that Chronic fatigue syndrome should be classified within Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system;

that classifying Chronic fatigue syndrome under the Chapter 18 “R” codes, in ICD-10-CM, will render patients more vulnerable to the proposals of the DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorders” workgroup.

These are views shared by other advocates, patients and carers, internationally, by the US CFSAC Committee (the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee that provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services) and by a number of US 501(c)(3) registered patient advocacy organisations.

At no time have I stated or implied that I am “trying to get CFS reclassified as ME”.

It should also be noted that I have had no involvement in or input into the initiative of the US Coalition4ME/CFS to make representations to the NCHS Committee responsible for updates to the US specific ICD-9-CM and development of ICD-10-CM, which replaces ICD-9-CM in October 2013.

I hope this makes my position clear and I trust that there will be no future misrepresentation of my views or my actions on any platform.

Discussion of the issue of the long-standing proposals for the coding of Chronic fatigue syndrome in ICD-10-CM was on the agenda of the meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee which took place on September 14.

An audio of this meeting and PDFs of meeting materials can be accessed from this page on the CDC website:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9cm_maintenance.htm

These materials and links and related ICD-10-CM coding issue material will be added to this site in due course.

Suzy Chapman
_____________________

https://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com
http://meagenda.wordpress.com
http://www.facebook.com/MEagenda
http://twitter.com/MEagenda

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), CFSAC meetings, Clinical Modification, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, ICD-10, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11, ICD-11 Alpha Draft, Somatic Symptom Disorder

← Older posts

Newer posts →