APA News Release 4 May 2011: New Framework Proposed for Manual of Mental Disorders

APA News Release 4 May 2011: New Framework Proposed for Manual of Mental Disorders

Post #74 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-12x

http://tinyurl.com/APAnewsrelease4may11

APA News Release 4 May 2011

American Psychiatric Association

News Release

For Information Contact:                                                            Release No. 11-27
Eve Herold 703-907-8640
press@psych.org

Erin Connors 703-907-8562
econnors@psych.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New Framework Proposed for Manual of Mental Disorders
APA Revisions a Key Step in Development of DSM-5

ARLINGTON, Va. (May 4, 2011) The American Psychiatric Association today released the organizational framework proposed for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). This restructuring of the DSMs chapters and categories of disorders signals the latest scientific thinking about how various conditions relate to each other and may influence care. The APA is again inviting comment from the public and mental health and other professionals who use the manual for both diagnostic and research purposes.

The revisions reflect the knowledge we have gained since the last DSM was published in 1994, said David Kupfer, M.D., chair of the DSM-5 Task Force. They should facilitate more comprehensive diagnosis and treatment approaches for patients and encourage research across diagnostic criteria.

The changes re-order the existing manuals 16 chapters based on underlying vulnerabilities as well as symptom characteristics, which currently result in many patients being diagnosed with multiple disorders within and across disorder groups. The chapters are arranged by general categories such as neurodevelopmental, emotional and somatic to reflect the potential commonalities in etiology within larger disorder groups.

The sequence of chapters builds on what we have learned about the brain, behavior and genetics over the past two decades, noted Steven Hyman, M.D., former director of the National Institute of Mental Health and a member of the DSM-5 Task Force.

Public comment is invited through June 15 on the draft framework and the latest proposed revisions to diagnostic criteria, both available on http://www.dsm5.org. During an initial public review and comment period last year an unprecedented occurrence in both the field of psychiatry and in medicine the APA received more than 8,000 written responses from clinicians, researchers and family and patient advocates. All of the responses were considered as part of the manuals reorganization.

Todays release marks another stage in the development of DSM-5. Rigorous scientific scrutiny is shaping this 14-year project, with the involvement of nearly 500 experts from the United States and abroad. Publication is scheduled for 2013.

The manuals new organization combines certain disorders under more comprehensive chapter headings while breaking others out from their previous categories. One example is obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), long considered to be an anxiety-driven disorder. Recent studies have shown that OCD and several related disorders involve distinct neurocircuits, and so they are now listed as a separate grouping a move that could advance understanding of their root causes.

There are other notable changes. Disorders previously listed under a single rubric of infancy, childhood and adolescence have been integrated into other chapters, in line with the goal of making DSM more developmentally focused. In addition, research findings linking schizophrenia and schizotypal personality disorder into a schizophrenia spectrum will be reflected in this next edition.

The schizophrenia spectrum designation is supported by studies showing how these disorders tend to aggregate within families, said Darrel Regier, M.D., M.P.H., vice chair of the DSM-5 Task Force and executive director of the American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education. It will help clinicians to correctly diagnose patients by making clear the common features that fall within the spectrum.

To date, reports on the deliberations and progress of the task force and 13 work groups have been presented at international conferences, through more than 100 papers and via the DSM-5 website. After last years public comment period, the work groups continued to amend and refine some categories of disorders.

The first round of field trials is now testing the new diagnostic criteria in real-world settings, including at nearly a dozen larger academic and clinical centers; almost 3,900 mental health professionals in individual practice and smaller settings also will participate before the trials conclude. Another public comment period on the criteria will then follow.

The DSM-5 framework and diagnostic criteria will be determined by 2012 and submitted to the APAs Board of Trustees for review and approval.

At every stage, said Kupfer, DSM-5 is benefiting from a depth of research and a breadth of expertise and diverse opinions that will immeasurably strengthen the final document.

The American Psychiatric Association is a national medical specialty society whose more than 36,000 physician members specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, prevention and research of mental illnesses, including substance use disorders. Visit the APA at www.psych.org and www.healthyminds.org.

 

Media coverage, APA’s 4 May DSM-5 announcement

MedPage Today

CNN Blog

 

Related information:

Post: 05.05.11 American Psychiatric Association (APA) announces second public review of DSM-5 draft criteria and structure

APA announces second public review of DSM-5 draft criteria and structure

American Psychiatric Association (APA) announces second public review of DSM-5 draft criteria and structure

Post #73 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-12k

Second public stakeholder review and feedback period now 4 May to 15 June

APA News Release No: 11-27 PDF: http://tinyurl.com/APAnewsrelease4may11 

or open PDF on this site here: New Framework Proposed for Manual of Mental Disorders

Online posting of draft disorders and criteria proposed by the 13 DSM-5 Work Groups for new and existing mental disorders had originally been scheduled for May-June, this year. According to a revised Timeline on the APA’s DSM-5 Development site, in March, this second public review exercise had been rescheduled for August-September:

“August-September 2011: Online Posting of Revised Criteria. Following the internal review, revised draft diagnostic criteria will be posted online for approximately one month to allow the public to provide feedback. This site will be closed for feedback by midnight on September 30, 2011.”

But yesterday, 4 May, the APA announced that the second public review period is now open and will run from May to 15 June.

The DSM-5 site was updated yesterday with announcements and revised proposals (dated May 4, 2011) across all categories. The current review period closes on 15th June – just six weeks away.

Note that this is a public and stakeholder review and feedback exercise and is not restricted to professionals or members of the American Psychiatric Association.

There is a Task Force announcement here: http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

[Extracts]

What Specifically Has Changed on This Site?

“You will notice several changes to this Web site since we first launched in February 2010. Numerous disorders contain updated criteria…

” ...Is There Opportunity to Provide Further Comments?

“At this time, we are asking visitors to review and comment on the proposed DSM-5 organizational structure and criteria changes. Please note that the current commenting period will end on June 15, 2011. It is important to remember that the proposed structure featured here is only a draft. These proposed headings were reviewed by the DSM-5 Task Force in November 2010…

“…The content on this site will stay in its current form until after completion of the DSM-5 Field Trials, scheduled to conclude later this year. Following analysis of field trial results, we will revise the proposed criteria as needed and, after appropriate review and approval, we will post these changes on this Web site. At that time, we will again open the site to a third round of comments from visitors, which will be systematically reviewed by each of the work groups for consideration of additional changes. Thus, the current commenting period is not the final opportunity for you to submit feedback, and subsequent revisions to DSM-5 proposals will be jointly informed by field trial findings as well as public commentary.

“We look forward to receiving your feedback during the coming weeks and appreciate your participation in this important process.”      [Source: http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx]

There are brief notes on the proposed DSM-5 Organizational Structure here:

http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevision/Pages/proposed-dsm5-organizational-structure.aspx

The “Recent updates” page for “DSM changes” and “Disorder-specific changes” is here:

http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/RecentUpdates.aspx

 

Registration for submitting feedback

Last year, registration was required in order to submit comment via the DSM-5 Development website. You can register to submit feedback on the DSM-5 Development site home page or on the individual pages for specific category proposals (right hand side under “Participate”).

The revised Timeline can be read here: http://www.dsm5.org/about/Pages/Timeline.aspx

According to the Timeline, a third review and feedback is currently scheduled for January-February 2012, for two months.

 

Latest revisions for “Somatic Symptom Disorders”

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/SomaticSymptomDisorders.aspx

I will post  information in the next posting specific to the proposals of the DSM-5  Work Group for “Somatic Symptom Disorders”

 

Media coverage of APA’s 4 May DSM-5 announcement

MedPage Today

CNN Blog

APA postpones release of revised proposals for draft criteria for DSM-5 by three months

APA postpones release of revised proposals for draft criteria for DSM-5 by three months

Post #64 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-Yu

Slip slidin’ away…

There will be no public review of revised draft criteria for DSM-5 categories this coming May.

APA Field Trials got off to a late start and the DSM-5 timeline continues to slip.

Online posting of draft disorders and criteria proposed by the DSM-5 Work Groups for new and existing mental disorders had been scheduled for May-July, this year. Revised criteria were expected to be posted online in May, for a period of approximately one month to allow the public to review proposals and submit comment.

But according to a revised Timeline on the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) DSM-5 Development site, this second public review exercise is now postponed until August-September 2011:

“August-September 2011: Online Posting of Revised Criteria. Following the internal review, revised draft diagnostic criteria will be posted online for approximately one month to allow the public to provide feedback. This site will be closed for feedback by midnight on September 30, 2011.”

There are also references within the DSM-5 Timeline to ICD-10-CM and the forthcoming ICD-10-CM Partial Code Freeze, and to ICD-11.

ICD-11 Beta Draft

According to sources, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group are still working towards having a Beta Draft ready for May 2011.

But from a PowerPoint presentation posted briefly on the ICD-11 Revision website at the end of February, but swiftly removed following enquiries, evidently the WHO has been discussing the pros and cons of postponing the release of its own Beta Draft for public input until the autumn, or until the end of 2011, or possibly even May 2012.

Another ICD Revision document: ICD Revision Project Plan v 2.1, projects a date of May 2012 for release of the Beta Draft. Since there is no definitive and recent ICD-11 timeline on any of the WHO’s ICD Revision sites, and since ICD Revision is keeping schtum, it remains unclear at what point in the timeline a Beta Draft for ICD-11 will be released for public scrutiny and input (as opposed to purely internal use, as the Alpha Draft had been). I will update when more information becomes available.

The original dissemination date for ICD-11 had been 2012, with the timelines for the revision of ICD-10 and DSM-IV running more or less in parallel. But in 2007/8, the release date for ICD-11 was shifted to pilot implementation in 2014 and dissemination in 2015. A “pre-final draft” of ICD-11 is projected for March 2013 with submission for WHA endorsement in May 2014. ICD Revision are balancing “incomplete software, unsatisfactory content and incomplete review process” against reduced opportunity for public input and reduced public confidence, if the timeline for the Beta were to be extended.

In December 2009, the APA announced that the publication date for their DSM-5 was being extended to May 2013.

In January 2010, APA President, Alan F Schatzburg, MD, said:

“…the extension will permit better linking of DSM-5 to the U.S. implementation of the ICD-10-CM codes for all Medicare/Medicaid claims reporting, which are scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2013. APA will also continue to work with the World Health Organization (WHO) to harmonize DSM-5 with the mental and behavioral disorders section of ICD-11, which WHO plans to release no sooner than 2014.”

With a Partial Code Freeze looming this October for ICD-10-CM, the delays in starting field trials and now a three month postponement of publication of revised criteria for the second public review and comment period isn’t going to inspire confidence in a Task Force that has already come in for significant criticism of its oversight of the revision of DSM-IV.

Revised and expanded DSM-5 Timeline

[Timeline superceded by revised Timeline]

Ed: Footnotes: The “harmonization” of DSM-5 and ICD-11

The APA participates with the WHO in the “International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders” (Chapter 5) and a “DSM-ICD Harmonization Coordination Group”.

There is already a degree of correspondence between DSM-IV and Chapter V of ICD-10. For the next editions, the APA and the WHO have committed as far as possible:

“To facilitate the achievement of the highest possible extent of uniformity and harmonization between ICD-11 mental and behavioural disorders and DSM-V disorders and their diagnostic criteria.”

with the objective that

“The WHO and APA should make all attempts to ensure that in their core versions, the category names, glossary descriptions and criteria are identical for ICD and DSM.”

But the WHO acknowledges there may be areas where congruency between the two systems may not be achievable.

As the iCAT (the ICD-11 electronic collaborative drafting platform) stood last November, two new categories were listed in the Linearized Chapter 5, F45 – F48.0 (Somatoform Disorders) codes. It is understood from ICD documentation (DIFF File – Changes from ICD-10 [MS Excel doc. Retrieved 29.09.10; no longer available on 01.10.10]) that child categories F45.40 and F45.41 are new entities for ICD-11 [1].

Note the ICD-11 categories between F45 – F48.0, as they stood in the iCAT drafting platform last November, do not mirror current proposals of the DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorder” Work Group for renaming the “Somatoform Disorders” categories of DSM-IV to “Somatic Symptom Disorders” and combining a number of existing categories under a new rubric, “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD)”, and the more recently proposed “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSSD)” [2][3].

[1] Screenshot iCAT, ICD-11: Chapter 5: F45 – F48.0: https://dxrevisionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2icatchapter5f45somatoform.png  

[2] Article: Erasing the interface between psychiatry and medicine (DSM-5), Chapman S, 13 February 2011: http://wp.me/pKrrB-Vn

[3] Article: Revisions to DSM-5 proposals on 14.01.11: New category proposed “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder, Chapman S, 16 January 2011: http://wp.me/pKrrB-St  

[4] DSM-5 Development website: http://www.dsm5.org/about/Pages/Timeline.aspx

Ian Swales, MP amends his report on gov policy on CFS and ME (Three Parliamentary errors)

Ian Swales, MP amends his report on government policy on CFS and ME (Three Parliamentary errors)

Post #63 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-Y7

On 2 February 2011, Ian Swales (Lib Dem, Redcar) addressed a Parliamentary Adjournment Debate on ME. During that debate, the Health Minister, Paul Burstow, had stated that the World Health Organisation (WHO) uses the composite term CFS/ME for this condition.

This was incorrect. The WHO does not use the composite terms “CFS/ME” or “ME/CFS”.

In a Parliamentary Written Answer to Mr Swales, dated 16 February, the Health Minister corrected his error [1].

Mr Burstow had clarified:

“…During the Westminster Hall debate, on 4 February 2011, I said that the World Health Organisation uses the composite term CFS/ME for this condition*. This was incorrect.

“The World Health Organisation classes benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and post viral fatigue syndrome under the same classification G93.3 ‘diseases of the nervous system’; subheading ‘other disorders of the brain’.

“The report of the CFS/ME Working Group to the Chief Medical Officer, in January in 2002, suggested that the composite term CFS/ME be used as an umbrella term for this condition, or spectrum of disease. This term is also used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for their clinical guidelines.

“We do, however, intend to seek further advice on our classification and will update the hon. Member in due course.”

[Note that although Health Minister, Paul Burstow, gave the date of Ian Swales’ Adjournment Debate as “4 February” in his Written Answer of 16 February, the Debate took place on 2 February 2011.]

On 17 February, Mr Swales published a report on his website which went out under the title “Swales wins battle with Government on ME”. This report had claimed:

“Ian Swales MP’s fight for better treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) continues as he succeeds in getting the Government to recognise ME and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) as different illnesses.”

But Mr Swales had misinterpreted the content of the Written Answer he had received from the Health Minister.

 

This has caused much confusion amongst ME and CFS patients.

Advocates have raised this misunderstanding with Mr Swales and with his Parliamentary Researcher.

Today, an amended report has been published on Mr Swales’ website under the same URL and date, but with a new title – this time it is called:

“Swales corrects Minister on World Health Organisation definition of ME”

I am appending both versions.

To recap, because this is important, and because there is a further error:

Paul Burstow, Health Minister, incorrectly stated on 2 February, during an Adjournment Debate, that the WHO uses the composite term CFS/ME for this condition. That error was corrected by Mr Burstow in his Written Answer of 17 February.

Ian Swales, MP, then claimed in a website report that he had succeeded in getting the government to recognise ME and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) as different illnesses. This was a misinterpretation of Mr Burstow’s own correction and clarification. Mr Swales’ Parliamentary Office has now amended his report.

The Countess of Mar, meanwhile, tabled a Written Question of her own for which a response was provided on 1 March, by Earl Howe [3].

The Countess of Mar had tabled:

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement by the Minister of State for Health, Paul Burstow, on 2 February (Official Report, Commons, col. 327) that the World Health Organisation (WHO) described myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) and that this was the convention followed by the Department, in light of the fact that the WHO International Classification of Diseases 10 lists ME as a neurological disease with post viral fatigue syndrome (PVFS) under G93.3 and CFS as a mental health condition under F48.0 and that the latter specifically excludes PVFS, whether they will adhere to that classification.”

The response received on 1 March, was:

Earl Howe (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Quality), Health; Conservative)

“The department will continue to use the composite term chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) for this condition, or spectrum of disease, as suggested by the Chief Medical Officer in his 2002 report. We recognise the condition as neurological in nature.”

But the Countess of Mar’s Written Question also contains an error.

In the International version of ICD-10 (the version used in the UK and over 110 other countries, but not in the US which uses a “Clinical Modification” of ICD-9), CFS is not classified as a mental health condition under F48.0.

Chronic fatigue syndrome is listed in ICD-10 Volume 3: The Alphabetical Index, where it is indexed to G93.3, the same code as Postviral fatigue syndrome.

So in International ICD-10, Postviral fatigue syndrome, Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and Chronic fatigue syndrome are all three coded or indexed to G93.3 under “G93 Other disorders of brain”, in Chapter VI (6): Diseases of the nervous system.

In International ICD-10, the Mental and behavioural disorders chapter is Chapter V (5). 

http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf40.htm+f480

Chapter V (5) Mental and behavioural disorders

Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders are coded between (F40-F48)

Neurasthenia
Fatigue syndrome

are classified under (F40-F48) at F48.0, which specifically Excludes

malaise and fatigue ( R53 )

and

postviral fatigue syndrome ( G93.3 )

So now you know what UK government policy is and that Mr Swales had misled himself.

The forthcoming US specific ICD-10-CM

Perhaps the focus can now return to more pressing issues – like the fact that in the US, a Partial Code Freeze is looming for the forthcoming US specific version of ICD-10, known as “ICD-10-CM”.

Under longstanding proposals, the committees developing ICD-10-CM intend to retain Chronic fatigue syndrome in the R codes, and code it under R53 Malaise and fatigue, at R53.82 Chronic fatigue syndrome (NOS), but propose to code for PVFS and ME in Chapter 6, under G93.3.

The R codes chapter (which will be Chapter 18 in ICD-10-CM) is the 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.”

Coding CFS patients under R53.82 will consign them to a dustbin diagnosis: there are no guarantees that clinicians will use the unfamiliar ME code or that insurance companies will reimburse for G93.3. It will make patients more vulnerable to the proposals of the DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group. It will mean that ICD-10-CM will be out of line with at least four versions of ICD-10, including the Canadian “Clinical Modification”, and also out of line with the forthcoming ICD-11, where all three terms are proposed to be coded in Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system.

There are only seven months left before the 1 October Code Freeze and the clock is ticking.

 

Here is the first version of Mr Swales’ website report, followed by his amended version.

Version One:

http://ianswales.com/en/article/2011/455560/swales-wins-battle-with-government-on-me

Swales wins battle with Government on ME

February 17, 2011 3:45 PM

Ian Swales MP’s fight for better treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) continues as he succeeds in getting the Government to recognise ME and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) as different illnesses.

During Ian’s recent parliamentary debate on ME he argued that the Government needs to distinguish between Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and ME to provide better treatment for the different illnesses.

However, Health Minister Paul Burstow MP responded by saying that the World Health Organisation classifies Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and ME as the same illness.

Following an outcry from the ME community about this statement, Ian challenged the Minister on his definition of CFS/ME. The Minister admitted that the definition he used in the debate was “incorrect”.

Commenting, Ian Swales MP said:

“I am pleased that the Government has now recognised that ME and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are two different illnesses.

“After the debate I received a lot of correspondence from the ME community about the Government’s definition of CFS/ME, so after doing some more research on the matter I decided it was right to clarify this point with the Minister. I know they will be reassured by this news.

“I hope that approaching ME as a distinct condition will help lead to better, more effective treatment for sufferers through better analysis of their possible different causes and symptoms.”

[Ends]

Version Two:

http://ianswales.com/en/article/2011/455560/swales-wins-battle-with-government-on-me

Swales corrects Minister on World Health Organisation definition of ME

February 17, 2011 3:45 PM

Ian Swales MP’s fight for better treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) continues as he succeeds in getting the Government to acknowledge that the World Health Organisation does not use the composite term CFS/ME for the condition.

During Ian’s recent parliamentary debate on ME he argued that the Government needs to distinguish between Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and ME to provide better treatment for the different illnesses.

However, Health Minister Paul Burstow MP responded by saying that the World Health Organisation “uses the composite term CFS/ME for the condition”.

Following an outcry from the ME community about this statement, Ian challenged the Minister on his definition of CFS/ME. The Minister admitted that his statement was “incorrect”.

Commenting, Ian Swales MP said:

“I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged the error he made in the debate.

“After the debate I received a lot of correspondence from the ME community about the Government’s definition of CFS/ME, so after doing some more research on the matter I decided it was right to clarify this point with the Minister. I know they will be reassured by this news.

“I will continue my campaign to get more effective treatment for sufferers of ME through better analysis of its causes and symptoms.”

[Ends]

The text of the Adjournment Debate can be read here, on Hansard

 
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
4.13 pm

References:

[1] Written Answer: Paul Burstow to Ian Swales, 16 February 2011, 16 Feb 2011 : Column 864W:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110216/text/110216w0004.htm

[2] Amended Ian Swales website report:
http://ianswales.com/en/article/2011/455560/swales-wins-battle-with-government-on-me

[3] Written Answer: Earl Howe to The Countess of Mar, 01 March 2011:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-03-01a.297.1

Hansard for above:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110301w0001.htm#11030162000766

[4] Hansard, House of Lords Debate: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, 22 January 2004:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo040122/text/40122-12.htm

[5] Current codings in ICD-10 for Postviral fatigue syndrome; [Benign] myalgic encephalomyelitis and Chronic fatigue syndrome:
https://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com/icd-11-me-cfs/

Erasing the interface between psychiatry and medicine (DSM-5)

Erasing the interface between psychiatry and medicine (DSM-5)

Post #61 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-Vn

Under the guise of “eliminating stigma” and eradicating “terminology [that] enforces a dualism between psychiatric and medical conditions” the American Psychiatric Association (APA) appears hell bent on colonising the entire medical field by licensing the application of a mental health diagnosis to all medical diseases and disorders.

While a stream of often acerbic commentaries from two former DSM Task Force chairs, Allen Frances and Robert Spitzer, have focused on the implications for introducing new additions into the DSM and broadening the definitions of existing diagnostic criteria, the DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group (Chair, Joel E Dimsdale) has been quietly redefining DSM’s “Somatoform Disorders” categories with proposals that if approved, would legitimise the application of an additional diagnosis of “Somatic Symptom Disorder” to all medical diseases and disorders.

Radical proposals for renaming the “Somatoform Disorders” category “Somatic Symptom Disorders” and combining a number of existing categories under a new rubric, “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD)”, and a more recently proposed “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSSD)”, have the potential for bringing millions more patients under a mental health banner and expanding markets for psychiatric services, antidepressants, antipsychotics and behavioural therapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for the “modification of dysfunctional and maladaptive beliefs about symptoms and disease, and behavioral techniques to alter illness and sick role behaviors” for all patients with somatic symptoms, irrespective of cause.

In a June ’09 Editorial, titled “The proposed diagnosis of somatic symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – a preliminary report”, which expanded on a brief DSM-5 Work Group progress report published on the DSM-5 Development website that April, Joel E Dimsdale and fellow DSM-5 Work Group member, Francis Creed, reported that by doing away with the “controversial concept of medically unexplained symptoms”, their proposed classification might diminish the “dichotomy, inherent in the ‘Somatoform’ section of DSM IV, between disorders based on medically unexplained symptoms and patients with organic disease.”

If the most recent “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group proposals gain DSM Task Force approval, all medical diseases and disorders, whether “established general medical conditions or disorders” like diabetes or conditions presenting with “somatic symptoms of unclear etiology” will have the potential for a bolt-on diagnosis of “somatic symptom disorder”.

CFS and ME patients may be especially vulnerable to highly subjective and difficult to quantify constructs such as “disproportionate distress and disability”, “catastrophising”, “health-related anxiety”, “[appraising] bodily symptoms as unduly threatening, harmful, or troublesome” with “health concerns [that] may assume a central role in the individual’s life, becoming a feature of his/her identity and dominating interpersonal relationships.”

There may be considerable implications for these highly subjective criteria for the treatments offered to US patients, the provision of social care packages and the payment of medical and disability insurance.

Criteria are set out very briefly in the PowerPoint slides, but the full criteria and key documents need to be scrutinized. The most recent proposals of the DSM-5 “Somatic Symptoms Disorders” Work Group plus two key Disorder Description and Rationale PDF documents can be read on the APA’s DSM-5 Development site here:

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SomatoformDisorders.aspx

Two key Somatic Symptoms Disorders Work Group Draft Proposal documents:

     Revised Justification of Criteria Version 1/31/11

     Revised Disorder Descriptions: Version 1/14/11

The next public review of draft criteria and disorder descriptions has been postponed to August – September, this year, for a period of approximately one month for public review and feedback.

[1] Psychiatric Times Special Report, PSYCHIATRY AND MEDICAL ILLNESS Unexplained Physical Symptoms What’s a Psychiatrist to Do?  Humberto Marin, MD and Javier I. Escobar, MD, 01 August 2008

[Draft criteria superceded by third draft published on May 2, 2012]

Images copyright ME agenda 2011   No unauthorized reproduction.

The next public review of draft criteria and disorder descriptions is scheduled for May/June 2011.

Shortlink for this Post: http://wp.me/pKrrB-Vn

The clock is ticking for CFS: Partial Code Freeze for ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM/PCS Finalized

The clock is ticking for CFS: Partial Code Freeze for ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM/PCS Finalized (US)

Post #59 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-Un

The clock is ticking…

The US was authorized by the WHO to develop its own country specific adaptation of the WHO’s now retired ICD-9, called ICD-9-CM, and has been slow to move on to a “Clinical Modification” of ICD-10.

Rather than skip ICD-10 and move straight onto ICD-11 in 2015, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) has been developing a “clinical modification” of ICD-10 called ICD-10-CM. This development process has been in progress for a number of years.

So ICD-10-CM is US specific and it’s scheduled for implementation in October 2013 [1].

The US does not envisage moving on to ICD-11 (or an adaptation of ICD-11) for many years. So although the majority of countries will be implementing ICD-11 in 2015+, the US will sail on with ICD-10-CM.

Several other countries use a modification of ICD-10. Canada is authorized to use its adaptation of ICD-10, ICD-10-CA. According to one source, Canada may not adopt ICD-11 (or an adaptation of ICD-11) until beyond 2018.

ICD-10-CM

The US clinical modification is proposing to retain CFS in the R codes and to classify it at R53.82 in Chapter 18, rather than code CFS in Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system, along with ME and PVFS, at G93.3.

“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.” [2]

For ICD-10-CM, then, PVFS and (B)ME are proposed to be coded thus, in Chapter 6:

Diseases of the nervous system (G00-G99)

Excludes2:

[…]
symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified (R00-R94)

G93 Other disorders of brain

[…]

G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome

Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis
Excludes1: chronic fatigue syndrome NOS (R53.82)

which would bring the classification of PVFS and ME for the US in line with existing ICD-10 codes. (Though note that in ICD-10, Chronic fatigue syndrome is indexed to G93.3 in Volume 3: The Alphabetical Index and does not appear in Volume 1: The Tabular list under the G93 parent category.)

Whereas for ICD-10-CM, CFS is proposed to be coded thus, in Chapter 18:

R53: Malaise and fatigue

[…]

R53.82 Chronic fatigue, unspecified

Chronic fatigue syndrome NOS
Excludes1: postviral fatigue syndrome (G93.3)

Retaining CFS in the R codes and coding CFS in Chapter 18 under R53.82 (which specifically excludes G93.3) means that in ICD-10-CM, the coding of the terms CFS, PVFS and ME will be out of step with four classification systems:

1 The International ICD-10, which is used in the majority of countries.

2 The Canadian Clinical Modification ICD-10-CA.

3 The German Clinical Modification ICD-10-GM.

4 The proposals for Chapter 6 of ICD-11 as they stood in the iCAT ICD Revision Platform at November 2010, where CFS is proposed to be classified in Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system, with (B)ME specified as an Inclusion to CFS.

(I am informed that “PVFS” is a term little used by the US medical profession.)

 

Schism

This issue is proving divisive because some US patients would prefer to see CFS split from ME in ICD-10-CM. 

But retaining CFS in the R codes and placing it under the R53: Malaise and fatigue parent category may have considerable implications for patients who already have a diagnosis of CFS or who may receive a diagnosis of CFS in the future – for the treatments that are provided, the care packages received and for medical and disability insurance.

So I consider it will hurt patients to have CFS coded under the R chapter, rather than in Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system and that coding CFS under “ill-defined conditions” will render CFS and ME patients more vulnerable to the current proposals for the revision of the “Somatoform Disorders” section for DSM-5 [4].

If I were a patient who already had a diagnosis of CFS or might be given diagnosis of CFS in the future, I would feel safer if CFS were coded at G93.3, until the science has got it sorted. For there are no guarantees that US medics will diagnose ME and use the new ME code for billing purposes.

But this is not a new issue. 

US patients organizations, advocates and patients have known about these proposals for several years. The issue has been discussed at meetings of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC).

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). Copies of meeting agendas, minutes, recommendations, some presentations and since 2009, videocasts of entire meeting proceedings, can be accessed from the CFSAC pages. Minutes of meetings go back to September 2003 [3].

The codings issue had been discussed by CFSAC in June 2004 and again in September 2005, when a presentation had been given by the CDC’s Donna Pickett. In 2005, the committee had recommend that CFS be classified under G93.3.

“Recommendation 10: We would encourage the classification of CFS as a ‘Nervous System Disease,’ as worded in the ICD-10 G93.3.” CFSAC Committee Recommendations August 2005

The issue was discussed more recently, at the May 2010 CFSAC meeting. During the last ten minutes of that meeting, Dr Lenny Jason discussed his concerns with the committee that the placement of CFS in ICD-10-CM under the Chapter 18 “R” codes could be problematic. 

CFSAC 10.05.10 Agenda

CFSAC 10.05.10 Minutes

Videocast of CFSAC meeting

The Recommendations for that meeting in relation to the coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM had been:

“CFSAC rejects proposals to classify CFS as a psychiatric condition in U.S. disease classification systems. CFS is a multi-system disease and should be retained in its current classification structure, which is within the “Signs and Symptoms” chapter of the International Classification of Diseases 9-Clinical Modification (ICD 9-CM).*

“*DFO Note: The ICD 10-CM is scheduled for implementation on October 1, 2013. In that classification, two mutually exclusive codes exist for chronic fatigue [sic]:

“post-viral fatigue syndrome (in the nervous system chapter), and
chronic fatigue syndrome, unspecified (in the signs and symptoms chapter).

“HHS has no plans at this time to change this classification in the ICD 10-CM.”

Incidently, amongst the Recommendations of the CFSAC committee for the October 2010 meeting was:

3. Adopt the term “ME/CFS” across HHS programs.

I hope further discussion of ICD-10-CM codings can be pushed back up the agenda for the next CFSAC meeting because a number of issues were left hanging.

 

Code “freezing”

Although ICD-10-CM is not scheduled for implementation until October 2013, it had been proposed that at some point prior that date codes might be “frozen”.

At the ICD-9-CM Coordination & Maintenance Committee Meeting on Sept. 15, 2010, it was announced that the committee had finalized the decision to implement a partial freeze for both ICD-9-CM codes and ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS codes prior to implementation of ICD-10-CM on Oct. 1, 2013.

As of October 1, 2011, only limited updates will be instituted into the code sets so that providers, payers, clearinghouses, and health IT vendors will not have to simultaneously keep pace with code updates while also reconfiguring their existing systems for ICD-10-CM/PCS.

 

So the clock is ticking and US advocates and patients need to be aware of how little time may be left.

A few days ago, I contacted Donna Pickett, Medical Systems Administrator, Classifications and Public Health Data Standards, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to enquire whether the proposed date by which ICD-10-CM codings might be “frozen” had been finalized.

Ms Pickett has provided information regarding the freezing of the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM code sets.

She also confirmed that Clinical criteria and diagnostic guidelines will not be included in ICD-10-CM.

(As I have reported before, for ICD-11, diseases and disorders will be defined through multiple parameters according to a common “Content Model” so there will be definitions, clinical descriptions etc and the potential for considerably more textual content than in ICD-10. See: http://wp.me/pKrrB-KK  for screenshots.)

The notice below is also available in PDF format here

There is an associated meeting Agenda Handout which also includes this information and dates of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM meetings: Agenda. ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee. DHSS

Partial Code Freeze for ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 Finalized

The ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee will implement a partial freeze of the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 (ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS) codes prior to the implementation of ICD-10 on October 1, 2013. There was considerable support for this partial freeze. The partial freeze will be implemented as follows:

• The last regular, annual updates to both ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 code sets will be made on October 1, 2011.

•On October 1, 2012, there will be only limited code updates to both the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 code sets to capture new technologies and diseases as required by section 503(a) of Pub. L. 108-173.

• On October 1, 2013, there will be only limited code updates to ICD-10 code sets to capture new technologies and diagnoses as required by section 503(a) of Pub. L. 108-173. There will be no updates to ICD-9-CM, as it will no longer be used for reporting.

• On October 1, 2014, regular updates to ICD-10 will begin.

The ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee will continue to meet twice a year during the partial freeze. At these meetings, the public will be asked to comment on whether or not requests for new diagnosis or procedure codes should be created based on the criteria of the need to capture a new technology or disease. Any code requests that do not meet the criteria will be evaluated for implementation within ICD-10 on and after October 1, 2014 once the partial freeze has ended.

Codes discussed at the September 15 – 16, 2010 and March 9 – 10, 2011 ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting will be considered for implementation on October 1, 2011, the last regular updates for ICD-9-CM and ICD-10. Code requests discussed at the September 14 – 15, 2011 and additional meetings during the freeze will be evaluated for either the limited updates to capture new technologies and diseases during the freeze period or for implementation to ICD-10 on October 1, 2014. The public will be actively involved in discussing the merits of any such requests during the period of the partial freeze.

References:

(For history of ICD in the US to 2001, see archive CDC document: A Summary of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Its Classification in the International Classification of Diseases. The March 2001 proposals are since superceded as per 2009, 2010 and 2011 proposals.)

[1] International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). Note: The 2011 release of ICD-10-CM is now available. It replaces the December 2010 release:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10cm.htm

[2] US “Clinical Modification” ICD-10-CM
This article clarifies any confusion between ICD-10, ICD-11 and the forthcoming US Clinical Modification, ICD-10-CM: http://wp.me/pKrrB-Ka

[3] Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC). 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. Minutes of meetings, Recommendations and meeting videocasts:
http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/

[4] The most recent proposals of the DSM-5 “Somatic Symptoms Disorders” Work Group plus two key Disorder Description and Rationale PDF documents can be read on the APA’s DSM-5 Development site:
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SomatoformDisorders.aspx

or here on Dx Revision Watch site: http://wp.me/pKrrB-St