April 4, 2017 Frozen Release of ICD-11 Beta draft for centres undertaking field testing

Post #331 Shortlink:  http://wp.me/pKrrB-4fc

As scheduled, ICD Revision posted a Frozen Release of the ICD-11 Beta draft today, April 4, 2017.

This is a stable version of the draft for use by the centres that are signed up for field testing the Beta draft for utility.

This PDF document sets out information of the field trial process:

ICD-11 Field Trials, Information and Terms of Engagement, 17 March 2017

The Frozen Release can be accessed here (Registration required for access):

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/frozenreleases

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/frozen-2017-04-02/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f569175314

 

Here are screenshots from the April 4, 2017 Frozen Release for the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms, “postviral fatigue syndrome,” “benign myalgic encephalomyelitis,” and “chronic fatigue syndrome.”

There is no change to these terms in the Frozen Release compared with how they had stood on March 26, when the three terms were finally restored to the Beta draft.

Frozen Release: April 4, 2017: Postviral fatigue syndrome

Fatigue, below, displaying exclusions for BME and CFS. Two of the longstanding proposals that I had submitted on December 30, 2014, were approved and marked as “Implemented” on March 26, when the G93.3 legacy terms were finally returned to the draft with this caveat:

“While the optimal place in the classification is still being identified, the entity has been put back to its original place in ICD.” Team WHO 2017-Mar-26 – 12:46 UTC

NB: My proposal of December 30, 2014 for an exclusion for the concept title “Postviral fatigue syndrome” was not approved and implemented on March 26, when PVFS’s two inclusion terms were approved. I have queried the rationale for this apparent anomaly with “Team WHO” but have yet to receive any response.

Frozen Release: April 4, 2017: Fatigue

For a good overview of ICD-11’s structure and functionality by NHS Digital click here

Save

Save

Save

A proposal for the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11: Part Two

Post #330 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-4eH or http://bit.ly/ICD11proposal
For background to Part Two see: A proposal for the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11: Part One

Update: A PDF Q & A for our proposals can be downloaded here

 

In the World Health Organization’s ICD-10, the terms, “postviral fatigue syndrome,” “benign myalgic encephalomyelitis,” and “chronic fatigue syndrome,” are all classified to G93.3, in the neurological chapter, as below:

Image source: ICD-10 Version: 2016

The next edition of ICD (ICD-11) is scheduled for release at some point in 2018, following presentation at the World Health Assembly (WHA), in May 2018.

The WHO work group with responsibility for the G93.3 legacy categories removed the terms from the publicly accessible version of the ICD-11 Beta draft, in early 2013, while they deliberated over how these categories should be represented in ICD-11.

On March 26, after a four year absence from the draft, “Team WHO” finally restored the G93.3 terms to the Beta platform.

Two long standing proposals for inserting exclusions under Fatigue for Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and Chronic fatigue syndrome were also approved on March 26.

The three G93.3 legacy terms were returned to their 2009 Beta location with this caveat:

“While the optimal place in the classification is still being identified, the entity has been put back to its original place in ICD.”

This suggests that we should view this as a “placeholder” and that the Topic Advisory Group for Neurology may release revised proposals later this year.

WHO has confirmed there is no intention to classify the terms under the Mental or behavioural disorders chapter or under the Symptoms, signs chapter.

 

How does the draft currently stand?

All three terms are currently back under the Neurology chapter, under parent: Other disorders of the nervous system, with PVFS as the lead (or concept title) term. BME and CFS are specified as inclusion terms (so they are coded to the same code as PVFS). All other content on the listing is much as it had stood in the Beta, in 2009.

(This is almost the same hierarchy as in ICD-10, except CFS is now included in the ICD-11 equivalent of the Tabular List, whereas in ICD-10, CFS is included only in the Index. Canada, Germany and the U.S. already have all three terms in their Tabular Lists.)

This is how the terms currently appear in the Beta draft:

https://icd.who.int/dev11/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/569175314

In view of the caveat, it remains unclear what Topic Advisory Group for Neurology might still be considering for these terms, when they will reach consensus, or whether alternative proposals might be released at some point.

There was a proposals deadline on Thursday, March 30. Proposals received after this date may have to wait until after the ICD-11 is tested and released to be considered for inclusion in the first annual update of ICD-11, in 2019.

 

A proposal for ICD-11

To ensure that these terms are present and appropriately classified in ICD-11, U.S. advocate Mary Dimmock and I have collaborated on the preparation of a proposal for the restructure of the ICD-10 G93.3 category terms: Postviral fatigue syndrome; Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis; and Chronic fatigue syndrome.

We submitted a formal and fully referenced proposal on March 27.

Our proposal recommends:

  • that the terms should be retained in the neurological chapter (Chapter 08: Diseases of the nervous system);
  • that the terms should be retained under the parent class: Other disorders of the nervous system;
  • that ME and CFS should each be assigned separate codes;
  • that PVFS is not an appropriate title term for ME to sit under (not all cases of ME are preceded by a virus).

We’ve also recommended:

  • reciprocal exclusions for “Bodily distress disorder” and for general Fatigue;
  • that the designation “Benign” should be dropped for ICD-11.

Our proposed restructure for ICD-11 looks like this:

Viewing our proposal

In order to view our Proposal in the Beta “Proposal Mechanism” you will first need to register with the Beta platform (this only takes a minute or two and you can register, if you wish, using an existing social media, Yahoo, Google or MS account).

Register for access here:

https://icd.who.int/dev11/Account/Register?returnUrl=%2Fdev11%2Fl-m%2Fen

There is a WHO tutorial video on how to register, here:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/trainingvideos/

Once you are registered and logged in, go straight to this page to view and comment on our Proposal:

https://icd.who.int/dev11/proposals/f/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/988657115?readOnly=true&action=ComplexHierarchicalChangesProposal&stableProposalGroupId=4b26ab6a-393f-4a39-9051-4ac1d4b1a55a

For ease of access, we’ve put a copy of our Proposal and Rationale into a PDF, which you can download here:

Suzy Chapman, Mary Dimmock Proposal for ICD-11

We’re inviting patient and advocacy organizations and other stakeholders to review and comment on our Proposal.

Comments will only be accepted via the Beta “Proposal Mechanism” – so don’t send comments directly to ICD Revision.

If you are commenting on behalf of an organization, please state the organization’s name and in what capacity.

The Comment box for our proposal is located right at the bottom of the web page:

Click here for larger version

You won’t be able to edit or delete your comment once it’s been submitted ‒ so you may want to prepare a draft, first. You can include references to papers, reports etc in support of your comments but you won’t be able to upload files ‒ and it’s a plain text field only.

At the moment, it’s not clear what date comments on proposals will need to be received by in order to be taken into consideration for the version of ICD-11 that is scheduled for release in 2018. But we are recommending that comments are submitted within the next couple of weeks.

As well as commenting on our proposal, now that ICD Revision has restored the three terms to the draft, you may also comment on how the draft currently stands, here:

https://icd.who.int/dev11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f569175314

Click here for larger version

If you have an queries please contact Suzy Chapman via the Contact Form.

Here’s the PDF again Suzy Chapman, Mary Dimmock Proposal for ICD-11

And here’s the URL again for our proposal on the Beta draft Proposal Mechanism

For a good overview of ICD-11’s structure and functionality by NHS Digital click here

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

A proposal for the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11: Part One

Post #329 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-4dV

Our Proposal and Rationale is set out in Part Two:

A proposal for the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11: Part Two

A version of ICD-11 in 2018

It’s been a long time coming and it ain’t finished yet…

The World Health Organization (WHO) has been revising ICD-10 since 2007.

After several shifts in the timeline, WHO plans to present a version of the next edition (ICD-11 MMS) at the World Health Assembly (WHA), in May 2018.

WHO won’t be seeking endorsement of the ICD-11 product in May 2018 because it won’t be ready to implement. Endorsement will be sought at some point in the future. In the meantime, a version of ICD-11 is scheduled for release later in 2018, after the May assembly. The release date has yet to be announced.

https://hscic.kahootz.com/connect.ti/t_c_home/view?objectId=297939

“…The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently developing the 11th revision of ICD. Once endorsed by the World Health Assembly (WHA), WHO Nomenclature regulations stipulate that Member States must use the most current revision for mortality and morbidity purposes. For this reason and to allow member countries to adopt the new revision when they are ready, WHO will brief the WHA on ICD-11 in May 2018 but will not seek endorsement at this time.”

Member states will transition from ICD-10 to the new edition at their own pace. It’s going to be several years before countries have evaluated the ICD-11 product for utility and prepared their health systems to make the transition.

At some point, data using codes from the new edition will be accepted alongside data compiled using ICD-10. WHO will continue to support ICD-10 until the majority of member states have adopted and implemented the new edition.

It will take even longer for countries like the U.S. and Canada, who use a country specific adaptation of ICD, to implement as they will need to modify the new edition to suit their countries’ health systems. The earliest Canada can implement is currently projected as 2023 [1]. The U.S.’s CDC estimate it will take at least 6 years after the codes have been ratified to prepare, field test and implement an ICD-11-CM/PCS.

 

Proposal deadlines

Some important deadlines for proposals for the ICD-11 Beta draft:

The deadline in order for proposals to be considered for a frozen version in March/April 2017 was 30 December 2016.

In order for proposals to be considered for inclusion in the version of ICD-11 that is scheduled for release in 2018, they needed to be submitted by March 30, 2017. So those two deadlines have been reached.

Comments by member states and improvements arising as a part of the Quality Assurance mechanism will be included with deadlines later in 2017.

According to Slide #12 in this November 2016 WHO presentation, the deadline for member state comments is May 31, 2017; the deadline for Field Testing and Quality Assurance is June 30, 2017 [2]. But these dates are unconfirmed and may have been revised since November, last year.

Proposals received after the end of May will be considered in the context of ICD-11 maintenance after 2018, when the new version will be subject to an annual update and maintenance schedule [3]. The first annual update is anticipated in 2019.

The Joint Task Force is considering naming each year’s iteration in the format: ICD 2018; ICD 2019; ICD 2020 and so on. There may never be a need for an ICD-12, since an electronic system is better able to evolve “gracefully” – as Dr Christopher Chute (Joint Task Force; Chair, Revision Steering Group) puts it – in response to advances in scientific knowledge and classificatory changes.

 

Deadlines for submitting comments

I have asked Dr Jakob and the Joint Task Force to clarify by what date comments on proposals that met the March 30 deadline will need to be submitted by in order to be considered in the context of the earliest release of ICD-11, in 2018.

No clarification has been forthcoming; so if you are a stakeholder considering submitting a comment on existing proposals in the Beta draft or on outstanding proposals queued in the “Proposals Mechanism” which are still going through the review process, then I would advise that you put this in hand over the next couple of weeks. If any deadline is announced, I will update at the top of this report.

 

Frozen release

On April 4, ICD Revision is scheduled to release a frozen version of ICD-11 MMS for field testing*. If there are any changes in this April 2017 Frozen Release that are relevant to stakeholders in the G93.3 terms, I will post an update at the top of this report.

*ICD-11 Field Trials, Information and Terms of Engagement, March 17, 2017 https://hscic.kahootz.com/gf2.ti/af/762498/122441/PDF/-/ICD11_FT_Information_and_ToE.pdf

 

Current status of the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy categories

The ICD-10 G93.3 legacy categories: Postviral fatigue syndrome; Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and Chronic fatigue syndrome were taken out of the public version of the Beta draft in early 2013, with no explanation for their absence.

ICD Revision has maintained a cephalopodic grip on its intentions for these terms.

Advocates and patient organization stakeholders have been attempting to obtain transparency from ICD Revision around the Topic Advisory Group for Neurology’s proposals for these terms for over four years. During this period, stakeholders have been disenfranchised from participation in the revision process.

 

Questions raised in the English Parliament

15 international stakeholder organizations wrote to the ICD-11 MMS Joint Task Force, in February, in support of my call that the Joint Task Force place the matter of the continued absence of proposals for these terms on the Agenda of their February 20–22 meeting, in Cologne.

There were asked to expedite the release of proposals for public scrutiny and comment before the March 30 deadline.

This initiative was met with a disturbing level of obfuscation on the part of WHO and the Joint Task Force, especially given that ICD Revision has been promoted as an open, transparent process, inclusive of stakeholder participation.

The Countess of Mar, a long standing advocate for patients with ME and CFS, tabled two Written Questions in the House of Lords. The first is here (February 27), which received a response that raised more questions than it answered and a follow up question, here (March 16), which received an equally opaque reply.

But on March 26, the three terms were finally restored to the Beta draft – but with this caveat:

“While the optimal place in the classification is still being identified, the entity has been put back to its original place in ICD.”

Team WHO 2017-Mar-26 – 12:46 UTC

This suggests that we should view the restoration of the terms as a “placeholder” and that the work group may release revised proposals later this year.

 

What do we know?

WHO has confirmed that there is no intention to classify the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms under the Mental or behavioural disorders chapter or under the Symptoms, signs chapter.

“Team WHO” has also approved some long standing proposals for exclusions for two of these terms under Fatigue (but not yet approved an exclusion for Postviral fatigue syndrome and I have asked “Team WHO” for the rationale for this apparent anomaly, since one would anticipate that if the inclusion terms are excluded under Fatigue, the ICD concept title entity would also be excluded). Possibly, TAG Neurology has other plans for the classification of PVFS in ICD-11.

So, nearly 10 years into the revision process, it’s still unclear what the work group might be considering for these terms, when they will reach consensus, or whether alternative proposals might be released on April 4, when a frozen version of ICD-11 is scheduled for release for field testing.

 

How do the terms currently stand in ICD-10?

This is how the G93.3 legacy terms were represented in ICD-10:

For ICD-10, Postviral fatigue syndrome (PVFS) is the lead (or concept title) term. Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis is the inclusion term under PVFS and takes the G93.3 code. Chronic fatigue syndrome is listed only in the Index, and coded to G93.3.

 

How do the terms stand in ICD-11 Beta draft, now they have been restored?

Since March 26, 2017, for ICD-11 Beta draft, all three terms are currently back under the Neurology chapter, under parent: Other disorders of the nervous system. PVFS is the lead (or concept title) term. BME and CFS are both specified as inclusion terms to PVFS, in the ICD-11 equivalent of the Tabular List. The terms listed under synonyms and all other “Content Model” descriptive content appear much as the Beta had stood in 2009.

But given the caveat, it is still unknown what the work group might be considering for these terms or whether or when they might release further proposals.

Note that the recommendations of the various external work groups are advisory only. WHO classification experts and the Joint Task Joint can, and sometimes do, overrule work group decisions.

If the Topic Advisory Group for Neurology, that has responsibility for these terms, were to reach consensus and release an alternative set of proposals before 2018, these will not necessarily obtain the approval of WHO/Joint Task Joint.

 

Suzy Chapman and Mary Dimmock have submitted a proposal

To address this situation, U.S. advocate, Mary Dimmock, and I have collaborated on the preparation of a formal and fully referenced proposal which we submitted on March 27. Our proposal (in the PDF below) recommends that these terms should be retained in the neurological chapter, using separate codes for ME and CFS, and also makes other recommendations.

PDF: Suzy Chapman, Mary Dimmock Proposal for ICD-11

 

Our Proposal and Rationale is set out in Part Two:

A proposal for the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11: Part Two

For a good overview of ICD-11’s structure and functionality by NHS Digital click here

References:

1 International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 11th Revision, Canada, Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). https://www.cihi.ca/en/submit-data-and-view-standards/codes-and-classifications/icd-11

2 Presentation, Dr Robert Jakob, WHO/ICD Revision, November 2016. https://t.co/VvtZXVHZoF

3 ICD Revision Quarterly Newsletter, ICD-11 Update: January 2017. http://www.who.int/entity/classifications/ICD11January2017Newsletter.pdf

Save

ICD-11 Revision releases External review and Response: shifts projected WHA adoption to 2018

Post #321 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-44N

Update: August 6, 2015

ICD Revision has now published a revised Project Plan and Communication Schedule:

ICD Project Plan 2015 to 2018

 

As previously posted

2017

And so it goes on…

The revision of ICD-10 and development of ICD-11 kicked off in April 2007. The original projected WHA adoption date was 2011/12 [1].

Then a shift to 2015, then to 2017.

WHO has just kicked the can further down the road to May 2018.

In July 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) Office of the Assistant Director General, Health Systems and Innovation, posted a call for expressions of interest from suitable contractors to conduct an interim assessment of the 11th Revision for International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

External assessment was prompted by concerns raised by WHO Member States, UN Statistical Commission and other stakeholder organizations about the status of the revision and the utility of the ICD-11 product.

The External review of ICD-11 Revision’s progress has now been completed.

Last week, WHO quietly released a report on the status of the ICD revision process, its management and resources, the feasibility of meeting its goals and timelines, and its fitness for purpose.

The reviewers’ assessment and recommendations can be read here: External report

Read WHO’s initial response to the report’s findings and the actions ICD Revision proposes to take here: WHO Response to External Report

WHO says:

WHO welcomes the constructive messages of the Report of the ICD-11 Revision Review. WHO is initiating the second phase of the revision process, acting immediately on the Review’s recommendations.

A revised workplan will be formulated before the end of June and submitted for approval to the RSG-SEG. During 2015 the WHO secretariat will be strengthened in terms of project management, communication of progress and plans, documentation and transparency of decision-making and classification expertise, as recommended by the reviewers.

As I predicted, a further shift in the development timeline from WHA adoption in May 2017 to May 2018 is proposed, along with other measures.

References

1 Exhibit 1 WHO Letter August 2007
Letter Saxena, WHO, to Ritchie, IUPsyS (International Union for Psychological Science), August 2007

2 External Review ICD-11 (Consultancy Interim Assessment of 11th ICD Revision, January – March 2015)

3 WHO Response to External Review of ICD-11 (Initial WHO response to the report of the external review of the ICD-11 revision,Department of Health Statistics and Information Systems, May 12 2015)

Submission: Proposal: Add Somatic symptom disorder as inclusion term to ICD-10-CM

Post #309 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3WD

You have until Friday in which to submit comments on any of the numerous diagnosis proposals presented at the March ICD-10-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting.

Comments should be sent to NCHS, preferably by email, by June 20th deadline: nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov

+++
The next public meeting of the ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee is scheduled for September 23–24, 2014. If you are planning to attend the meeting in person you will need to register online by September 12. Registration opens on August 15.

New proposals for the September 23–24, 2014 meeting must be received by July 18.

+++
September 2013 meeting Diagnosis Agenda

The fall meeting of the ICD-9-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee took place on September 18–19.

The Diagnosis Agenda had included the proposals to add the new DSM-5 disorder terms: Somatic symptom disorder and Illness anxiety disorder to the ICD-10-CM Tabular List and the Alphabetical Index.

Note that the proposal was to add the terms as Inclusion Terms under existing ICD-10-CM Chapter 5 codes, not to create unique new codes for these two terms, or to replace or subsume any existing categories:

ICD10CM 4

Source: Page 45, Diagnosis Agenda (Topic Packet), September 18–19, 2013 ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting

+++
March 2014 meeting Diagnosis Agenda

The spring C & M Committee meeting took place on March 19–20, 2014. I was unable to attend either meeting as I live in the UK, and it is not feasible for me to participate in these public meetings via phone link.

The March Diagnosis Agenda included reiteration of the September proposal to add Somatic symptom disorder to the ICD-10-CM Alphabetical Index, coded to F45.1. (But did not include a resubmission to add to the Tabular List.) The reason for its reiteration in the March Agenda is unclear.

When the March Agenda requests for additions and modifications to the Tabular List were reached, CDC’s Beth Fisher had remarked that some of the proposals for additions to the Tabular List may have been proposed at the September 2013 meeting (though no explanation was given for why some of these September proposals were being duplicated in the March Agenda).

Evidently some Index proposals from the September meeting were also duplicated in the March Agenda, including SSD, but not Illness anxiety disorder.

There were no comments or queries from the floor in relation to proposals for SSD. There were no queries about whether NCHS decisions had already been reached on the requests for additions and modifications submitted via the September meeting.

It remains unclear whether the duplications in the March Agenda were due to administrative oversight, were being included for procedural reasons, or were being re-presented in response to NCHS committee decisions made following the September meeting, to which APA, but not the public at large, might be party to. (The outcome of both the September and March proposals may not be evident until 2015, when the next Addendum is posted.)

March Agenda proposal: Add Somatic symptom disorder to the Index as “– somatic symptom F45.1” under “Disorders”:

+++
March14 ICD-10-CM Cand M SSD to Index

Source: Diagnosis Agenda (Topic Packet) Page 89, March 19-20, 2014 ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting; Screenshot Videocast Three

+++
F45.1 (SSD) and F45.21 (Illness anxiety disorder) are the ICD-10-CM codes to which these two new APA disorders are already cross-walked in the DSM-5:

+++
SSDcrosswalk

+++
If NCHS rubber stamps the addition of Somatic Symptom Disorder to the ICD-10-CM it could leverage future proposals (either by NCHS/CMS or by external requestors) for the replacement of some or all of the existing Somatoform disorders categories with this new, single SSD diagnostic construct, in order to bring ICD-10-CM in line with DSM-5.

There are implications for ICD-11, too. Once SSD is inserted into ICD-10-CM, the presence of this term within the U.S. adaptation of ICD-10 may make it easier for the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group to justify proposals to replace the existing ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories with a single, new ICD construct incorporating SSD-like characteristics, to facilitate harmonization between ICD-11 and DSM-5 disorder terms and diagnostic criteria.

Comments by June 20th deadline, preferably by email, to: nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov

Below is my own submission to NCHS in PDF

Click link for PDF document   NCHS Submission Chapman June 14

and as text:


To: NCHS  nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov

Re: Comment on proposals, March 19-20, 2014 meeting of ICD-10-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee.

Diagnosis Agenda Page 89: Under “Proposed Index Modifications”: Add Somatic symptom disorder to ICD-10-CM Alphabetical Index (F45.1)

Proposal requestor: Unspecified

Comment submitted by Suzy Chapman DipAD, [Address redacted]

Date submitted: June 15, 2014

I write in objection to the proposed addition of Somatic symptom disorder to the ICD-10-CM Alphabetical Index for consideration for implementation on October 1, 2015 [or on and after October 1, 2016 after the partial code freeze has ended, as applicable].

This March 19-20, 2014 meeting proposal duplicates the request at the September 18-19, 2013 meeting for the addition of Somatic symptom disorder to the ICD-10-CM Index (and to the Tabular List) as an Inclusion Term to existing code, F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder.

Somatic symptom disorder is a new disorder conceptualization created by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) for DSM-5.

For DSM-5, the Somatoform Disorders have been dismantled. Four DSM-IV categories: somatization disorder [300.81], some presentations of hypochondriasis [300.7], pain disorder, and undifferentiated somatoform disorder [300.82] are eliminated and replaced with a single new diagnosis, Somatic symptom disorder (SSD), cross-walked in DSM-5 to ICD-9 300.82 (ICD-10-CM F45.1).

The Somatic symptom disorder construct de-emphasizes “medically unexplained” as the central defining feature of this disorder group. Instead, the focus shifts away from somatic symptoms to emotional, cognitive and behavioral disturbances and “maladaptive” responses to symptoms: high levels of health anxiety; disproportionate and persistent concerns about the medical seriousness of the symptom(s); or an excessive amount of time and energy devoted to symptoms and health concerns.

Symptoms may or may not be associated with another medical condition: SSD allows for the application of a mental disorder diagnosis in patients with “established general medical conditions or disorders” like diabetes, heart disease and cancer or presenting with “somatic symptoms of unclear etiology” if the clinician considers the patient otherwise meets the new criteria.

To meet the requirements for DSM-IV’s Somatization disorder, a rigorous criteria set needed to be fulfilled: a history of many medically unexplained symptoms before the age of thirty, resulting in treatment sought or psychosocial impairment. And a high diagnostic threshold: a total of eight or more medically unexplained symptoms from four, specified symptom groups, with at least four pain, two gastrointestinal, one psychosexual and one pseudoneurological symptom.

In DSM-5, the requirement for eight symptoms has been dropped to just one or more persistent, non specific, distressing somatic symptoms and the clinician’s perception of “excessive” or “maladaptive” response to the symptom or symptoms.

• These changes for DSM-5 represent a radical restructuring of the DSM-IV Somatoform disorders framework and introduce a new construct for which much remains to be determined.

On Day Two of the September 18-19, 2013 ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting, Dr Darrel Regier had presented and discussed rationales, coding proposals and timings for six new DSM-5 disorders that APA has proposed for insertion into ICD-10-CM. But the Diagnosis Agenda proposals to add the new DSM-5 Somatic symptom disorder and Illness anxiety disorder category terms as inclusion terms to ICD-10-CM did not form part of Dr Regier’s presentation.

As it was unspecified within the Diagnosis Agenda and during the meeting presentations, it is unclear whether these two proposals are being requested by APA, by NCHS/CMS, or by other parties or individuals.

+++
• My first concern is that no description of Somatic symptom disorder, no rationale for why this ICD-10-CM modification is needed (including clinical relevancy) and no supporting clinical and literature references for the validity of Somatic symptom disorder as a new disorder were published in the Diagnosis Agenda for either the September or March meeting.

At the public meeting, no presentation had been made on behalf of APA, or by representatives of NCHS or CMS, or by anyone else for the specific Agenda proposal to add Somatic symptom disorder as an inclusion term under an existing ICD-10-CM Somatoform disorders code and there was no discussion of this proposal during the course of the meeting [1][2].

There is an expectation that the committees overseeing the development and revision of the draft for ICD-10-CM will give due consideration to the applicability, clinical utility, safety and reliability of any proposal for the inclusion of a new disorder construct before granting approval for its addition to the Tabular List and Index, and that the comments and objections received during the public response period will also be considered. The lack of rationales and references for supportive evidence provided by the requestors hinders public participation in the response process.

• The absence from the Diagnosis Agendas and meeting presentations of rationales, clinical relevancy and supporting clinical and literature references to enable proper public scrutiny, consideration and informed responses to this proposal should disqualify Somatic symptom disorder from consideration for implementation once the partial code freeze has lifted.

+++
The burden of proof before introducing any new diagnosis into a classification system is that it has a favourable risk to benefit ratio. This new diagnostic construct created by APA and introduced into DSM-5 merits the same level of scrutiny and risk to benefit evaluation as would be expected to be applied to any proposed new disorder/disease that is under consideration for inclusion in any chapter of ICD, whether this is for the updating of the ICD-10-CM draft, updating of WHO’s ICD-10, updating of clinical modifications of ICD-10, or drafting of ICD-11.

A number of papers have noted the paucity of rigorous evidence for the validity, reliability, acceptability, safety and utility of the application of the Somatic symptom disorder construct in adults and children across diverse clinical settings and by a spectrum of health and allied professionals. There is no significant body of published research on the epidemiology, clinical characteristics or treatment of the Somatic symptom disorder construct [3][4][5].

In a paper published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, September 2013, the DSM-5 Somatic symptom disorder Work Group concedes the lack of clinical evidence for its new construct and acknowledges the “small amount of validity data concerning SSD” and “that much remains to be determined” about the utility and reliability of the specific SSD criteria and its thresholds when applied in busy, general clinical practice, and there are “vital questions that must be answered” as they go forward [6].

• As an under researched, poorly validated disorder construct, Somatic symptom disorder does not meet NCHS/CMS criteria for new diseases/new technology procedures, and any minor revisions to correct reported errors in these classification and should be rejected for consideration for implementation during a partial code freeze and also rejected for consideration for implementation on or after October 1, 2015 [October 1, 2016].

+++
Concerns for the looseness of the Somatic symptom disorder definition and the ease with which these new criteria can be met have been discussed in a number of published papers and commentaries [7][8][9][10].

The over-inclusiveness of the SSD diagnosis is borne out by the results of the DSM-5 field trial study reported by Joel E Dimsdale, MD, chair of the Somatic symptom disorder Work Group, at the 2012 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

15% of the ‘diagnosed illness’ study group, comprising patients with cancer or coronary disease, were caught by SSD and would meet the criteria for application of an additional mental disorder diagnosis.

26% of the ‘functional somatic’ study group, comprising patients with irritable bowel syndrome or chronic widespread pain, met the SSD criteria.

SSD has a high false positive rate – capturing 7% of the ‘healthy’ field trial control group.

It is disturbing that the SSD Work Group (which had included no primary care physicians or pediatricians) appears not to have undertaken any field trials into the safety of application of the SSD criteria in children and adolescents.

NCHS/CMS provides no references for data for the application of SSD in children within the Diagnosis Agenda, although the DSM-5 text clearly indicates APA’s intention that SSD is a diagnosis that may also be applied to children with persistent, distressing somatic symptoms.

+++
Potential implications for the application of a diagnosis of SSD:

I am not persuaded that the new SSD diagnosis can be safely applied outside the optimal conditions of field trials, in settings where practitioners may not necessarily have adequate time for, or instruction in administration of diagnostic assessment tools, and where decisions to code or not to code may hang on the arbitrary and subjective perceptions of a wide range of end-users who may lack clinical training in the application of mental disorder criteria.

Misapplication of highly subjective and loose, easily met criteria, especially in busy primary care practice, may result in inappropriate diagnoses of mental disorder and inappropriate medical decision making, with considerable implications for patients [11].

A recent study (Plouvier et al, 2014) found more frequent presentation with functional somatic symptoms and multiple prodromal symptoms in the two year period prior to diagnosis with Parkinson’s disease than controls [12].

Incautious application or a pre-existing diagnosis of SSD in the patient’s notes may blunt clinician alertness and receptivity to emerging prodromal symptomotology of serious disease.

Patients with chronic, multiple bodily symptoms due to rare diseases, difficult to diagnose conditions, or multi system diseases like Behçet’s disease, for which it can take several years to arrive at a diagnosis, may be especially vulnerable to missed diagnosis or to misdiagnosis with a mental disorder, impeding access to testing, investigations, timely diagnosis and early intervention (and may result in increased claims against practitioners for medical negligence).

With the elimination of the requirement that symptoms be “medically unexplained” and inclusion of the presence of a co-occurring physical health condition, a mental disorder diagnosis of SSD can be applied as a “bolt-on” to any chronic medical diagnosis: to patients with diabetes, angina, cancer, MS, cardiovascular disease, ME and CFS, IBS, chronic widespread pain (aka fibromyalgia), chronic pain conditions or persistent symptoms of unclear etiology.

Patients with Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), “almost a poster child for medically unexplained symptoms as a diagnosis,” according to the SSD Work Group chair, or with chronic Lyme disease, Gulf War illness, chemical injury and chemical sensitivity; women with potential symptoms of gynecological disease, like ovarian cancer – already often late-diagnosed because persistent symptoms had been initially dismissed as IBS or a menopausal-related bladder complaint; or women with endometriosis or interstitial cystitis may be particularly vulnerable to misapplication or misdiagnosis with a mental health disorder under SSD criteria.

(There is also a Brief somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5, cross-walked to ICD-9 F45.8, that can be applied where duration of symptoms is less than 6 months. Just one somatic symptom and one “disproportionate” psychobehavioral response to that symptom, for less than 6 months chronicity, now ticks the box for a mental health diagnosis.)

There has been considerable opposition to the introduction of this new, poorly tested construct into the DSM-5 amongst patients, carers, advocates, consumer organizations, mental health practitioners and clinicians and considerable concern for the implications for diverse patient populations that the Somatic Symptom Disorder category will provide a “dustbin diagnosis” for the so-called “functional somatic syndromes,” for those living with chronic pain and for patients with persistent, but as yet undiagnosed, symptoms of disease.

• NCHS/CMS has published no independent field trial data and provided no rationales or clinical and literature references to inform public responses.

Given the lack of published evidence for the validity and safety of SSD, there is insufficient basis for the approval of SSD for inclusion within ICD-10-CM and it would be scientifically unsafe, premature and against the public interest to include this new diagnostic construct within ICD.

The proposal for the addition of Somatic symptom disorder to the ICD-10-CM as an inclusion term to the Index and Tabular List should be rejected. There should be no implementation in October 2016 as an inclusion term to F45.1, or to any other existing code, or with a unique code created.

+++
Appendix:

Incautious, inept application of criteria resulting in a “bolt-on” psychiatric diagnosis of Somatic symptom disorder has far-reaching implications for diverse patient populations:

Application of highly subjective and difficult to measure criteria could potentially result in misdiagnosis with a mental disorder, misapplication of an additional diagnosis of a mental disorder or missed diagnoses through dismissal and failure to investigate new or worsening somatic symptoms.

Patients with cancer and life threatening diseases may be reluctant to report new symptoms that might be early indicators of recurrence, metastasis or secondary disease for fear of attracting a diagnosis of SSD or being labelled as “catastrophizers.”

Application of an additional diagnosis of SSD may have implications for the types of medical investigations, tests and interventions that clinicians are prepared to consider and for which insurers are prepared to fund.

Application of an additional diagnosis of SSD may impact payment of employment, medical and disability insurance and the length of time for which insurers are prepared to pay out.

 An SSD diagnosis may negatively influence the perceptions of agencies involved with assessment and provision of social care packages, disability adaptations, workplace accommodations, provision of education arrangements tailored to the needs of children with chronic illness, and the perceptions of medical staff during hospital and accident and emergency admission, and prejudice future employment options.

Patients prescribed psychotropic drugs for perceived unreasonable levels of “illness worry” or “excessive preoccupation with symptoms” may be placed at risk of iatrogenic disease or subjected to inappropriate and costly behavioural therapies.

Multi-system diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, Behçet’s disease or Systemic lupus can take several years before a diagnosis is arrived at. In the meantime, patients with chronic, multiple somatic symptoms who are still waiting for a diagnosis would be vulnerable to being labelled with a mental disorder.

The burden of the DSM-5 changes to Somatoform disorders will fall particularly heavily upon women who are more likely to be casually dismissed when presenting with physical symptoms and more likely to be prescribed inappropriate antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications for them.

Somatic symptom disorder allows for the application of a diagnosis of SSD in children and where a parent is perceived as being excessively concerned about a child’s symptoms.

The diagnostic term “Somatic Symptom Disorder” is already being applied to children despite the lack of a body of evidence for the reliability, safety and validity of the DSM-5 SSD criteria [13].

I am deeply concerned that NCHS/CMS is considering inclusion of a new diagnostic term within ICD when no studies have been carried out into the safety of its application in children and adolescents.

Families caring for children and young people with any chronic disease or condition may be placed at increased risk of wrongful accusation of “over-involvement” with their child’s symptomatology.

Where a parent is perceived as responsible for, or encouraging maintenance of “sick role behavior” or “secondary gains” in a child, this can trigger social services investigation, or court intervention for the forced removal of a sick child out of the home environment and into foster care or in-patient rehabilitation, or placement of the child on the “at risk register.”

This is already happening to families in the U.S., UK and Europe with a child or young adult with chronic illness, notably with Chronic fatigue syndrome or ME. It may happen more frequently with a diagnosis of SSD or of chronic childhood illness + SSD.

Where there are disputes between the family and clinicians over an assigned diagnosis or where there is disagreement between clinicians over the etiology of a child’s symptoms, an earlier or concurrent diagnosis of SSD may prejudice the family’s rights and the rights of the child or young person to determine what treatments are administered, where and by whom; or may be used to override or attempt to override the right to consent to treatments, or as a means of limiting parental access to the child and parental involvement in a treatment plan.

A diagnosis of SSD may also impact on a child’s access to suitable educational arrangements, including part-time school attendance, rest periods, reduced curriculum, home tutoring, examination concessions, provision of an amanuensis etc. and access to disability aids and adaptations, or to unhindered use of existing aids, such as wheelchairs.

Again, there is insufficient basis for the approval of SSD for inclusion within ICD-10-CM for application in children or adults. It is scientifically unsafe, premature and against the public interest to include this poorly tested diagnostic construct within ICD.

Thank you for your consideration.

+++
References:

1.Diagnosis Agenda,September 18-19, 2013 meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee.

2.Summary of Diagnosis Presentations, September 18-19, 2013 meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee.

3. DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group Disorder Descriptions and Justification of Criteria – Somatic Symptoms, published May 2011, for second DSM-5 stakeholder review.

4. Robert L. Woolfolk and Lesley A. Allen (2012). Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Somatoform Disorders, Standard and Innovative Strategies in Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Dr. Irismar Reis De Oliveira (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0312-7

5. Ghanizadeh A, Firoozabadi A. A review of somatoform disorders in DSM-IV and somatic symptom disorders in proposed DSM-V. Psychiatr Danub. 2012 Dec;24(4):353-8.

6. Dimsdale JE, Creed F, Escobar J, Sharpe M, Wulsin L, Barsky A, Lee S, Irwin MR, Levenson J. Somatic Symptom Disorder: An important change in DSM. J Psychosom Res. 2013 Sep;75(3):223-8. Epub 2013 Jul 25.

7. Frances A. The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill. BMJ. 2013 Mar 18;346:f1580. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1580.

8. Frances A. DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2013 Jun;201(6):530-1. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e318294827c.

9. Frances A, Chapman S. DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder mislabels medical illness as mental disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013 May;47(5):483-4. doi:10.1177/0004867413484525.

10. Wolfe F, Walitt BT, Katz RS, Häuser W. Symptoms, the nature of fibromyalgia, and diagnostic and statistical manual 5 (DSM-5) defined mental illness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 14;9(2):e88740. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088740. eCollection 2014.

11. Dimsdale JE. Medically unexplained symptoms: a treacherous foundation for somatoform disorders? Psychiatr Clin North Am 2011;34:511-3.

12. Plouvier AO, Hameleers RJ, van den Heuvel EA, Bor HH, Olde Hartman TC, Bloem BR, van Weel C, Lagro-Janssen AL2. Prodromal symptoms and early detection of Parkinson’s disease in general practice: a nested case-control study. Fam Pract. 2014 May 28. pii: cmu025. [Epub ahead of print]

13. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Juvenile Court Department, Court document, Honourable Joseph Johnston, March 25, 2014, Re: Care and Protection of Justina Pelletier: http://cbsboston.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/scan.pdf

Interest:

Carer/advocate for adult with long-term medical condition. Owner of website Dx Revision Watch, Monitoring the revision of DSM-5 and ICD-11. Co-author, journal papers and commentaries on the SSD construct (with Professor Allen Frances).

 

CMS posts ICD-10-CM Release for 2015; confirms Partial Code Freeze extension; reminder, SSD proposals

Post #306 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3SJ

This report updates on the revised implementation date for ICD-10-CM, the revised Partial Code Freeze timeline, the ICD-10-CM Release for 2015 files, and a reminder of the deadline for objections to the insertion of DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder into ICD-10-CM.

[For reminder of deadline for objections to proposed insertion of Somatic symptom disorder into ICD-10-CM, skip to red subheading.]

On April 1, 2014, Bill H.R. 4302, known as the PAM Act (Protecting Access to Medicare Act), was signed into law by President Obama.

As a result of a quietly inserted clause piggybacking on this Bill, implementation of ICD-10-CM was delayed by a further year. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has confirmed that the effective implementation date for ICD-10-CM is now October 1, 2015.

Until that time, the codes in ICD-10-CM (the U.S. specific adaptation of the WHO’s ICD-10) are not valid for any purpose or use.

+++

Partial Code Freeze

CMS has announced that the partial code freeze on updates to the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM diagnosis and procedure codes will continue until October 1, 2015.

Between October 1, 2011 and October 1, 2016 revisions to ICD-10-CM/PCS will be for new diseases/new technology procedures, and any minor revisions to correct reported errors in these classifications. Regular (at least annual) updates to ICD-10-CM/PCS will resume on October 1, 2016.

The Partial Code Freeze document has been updated to reflect the revised Timeline and can be accessed here in PDF format Partial Code Freeze for ICD-9-CM and ICD-10

or text, below:

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

The ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee (formerly the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee) implemented 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 which would end one year after the implementation of ICD-10. There was considerable support for this partial freeze. On April 1, 2014, the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) (Pub. L. No. 113-93) was enacted, which said that the Secretary may not adopt ICD-10 prior to October 1, 2015. Accordingly, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services expects to release an interim final rule in the near future that will include a new compliance date that would require the use of ICD-10 beginning October 1, 2015. The rule will also require HIPAA covered entities to continue to use ICD-9-CM through September 30, 2015. When published, links will be provided to this interim final rule at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/Statute_Regulations.html

The partial freeze will be implemented as follows:

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

• On October 1, 2012, October 1, 2013, and October 1, 2014 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, 2015, 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, 2016 (one year after implementation of ICD-10), regular updates to ICD-10 will begin.

The ICD-10 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, 2016 once the partial freeze has ended.

CDC has not yet updated its webpages to reflect the ICD-10-CM implementation delay or the revised Partial Code Freeze timeline.

+++

SSD and ICD-10-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee proposals

At the September 2013 and March 2014 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meetings, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) submitted numerous requests for addenda changes for new index entries and tabular inclusion terms for evaluation for implementation on October 1, 2015.

It is unclear whether requests for modifications submitted by APA and other requestors via these September and March meetings will be rolled forward for evaluation for implementation on and after the revised date of October 1, 2016 or whether these proposals will now need to be resubmitted at future C & M Committee meetings. (The next public meeting takes place September 23–24, 2014.)

I have approached NCHS for clarification.

+++
If the proposals from these two meetings do require resubmitting, this would provide another opportunity to comment on the proposal to add the DSM-5’s new disorder term, Somatic symptom disorder, to the ICD-10-CM.

See earlier post: Update on proposal to add DSM-5′s Somatic symptom disorder to ICD-10-CM

+++
At the public Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting on September 18–19, 2013, a proposal had been submitted to add Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) as an inclusion term to existing ICD-10-CM code F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder in the Tabular List Addendum (this also included addition to the Index).

Note: Proposal is not to create a unique code for SSD or to replace any of the existing ICD-10-CM somatoform disorders with SSD, but to add SSD as an inclusion term under an existing ICD-10-CM code, F45.1.

September 18–19, 2013 meeting Agenda, Page 45: PDF Agenda

ICD10CM 4

+++
The proposal to add somatic symptom disorder to the Index (under Disorder), was resubmitted at the public meeting on March 19–20, (reason unclear but a number of proposals for modifications to both the Tabular List and the Index from the September 2013 meeting were also duplicated at the March 2014 meeting).

March 19–20, 2014 meeting Agenda, Page 89: PDF Agenda

March14 ICD-10-CM Cand M SSD to Index

+++
Any decisions made on the considerable number of proposals requested at last year’s September meeting are yet to be posted and possibly won’t be evident until the relevant Addendum is released.

In the DSM-5, Somatic symptom disorder is already cross-walked to ICD-9 code 300.82 (ICD-10-CM F45.1):

+++
DSM-5 (Page 311)

SSDcrosswalk

+++
Given that APA worked with CDC on the cross-walk between the new DSM-5 disorder terms and ICD-9/ICD-10-CM equivalent codes, NCHS’s Director will likely rubber stamp the APA’s proposals for insertion of SSD and a number of other new DSM-5 categories.

Nevertheless, I shall be putting in another objection before the June 20 deadline and I hope all stakeholders with concerns will strongly oppose the incorporation of this controversial new disorder construct into ICD-10-CM.

The deadline for comments on proposals requested at the March meeting is June 20th.

Send comments, by email, to NCHS to nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov

+++
Not a small thing

Between 2010 and 2012, the SSD Work Group attracted considerable opposition across three stakeholder reviews to its radical proposals for a replacement for the somatoform disorders.

In late 2012 and early 2013, we saw a good deal of “outrage” in comments to articles by Allen Frances and myself here and here at Psychology Today and here in the BMJ, in response to the cavalier decision by the Task Force to barrel through with the SSD Work Group’s poorly validated disorder construct.

But I see little evidence of sustained opposition from U.S. professionals and patients over the September and March NCHS/CMS update and revision meeting proposals to insinuate SSD into ICD-10-CM.

At the moment, the proposal is for inserting SSD as an inclusion term under an existing category – not to create a unique code for SSD and not to replace the existing framework with SSD. At the September meeting, CDC’s Donna Pickett said:

“…And just to complete the package, there are other Tabular List proposals that appear on Page 45 and 46 that we would also invite your comments on. And again, with some of the terminology changes that Dr Regier has described the intent here is to make sure that if those terms are being used, that they do have a home somewhere within ICD-10-CM to facilitate people looking these up. So we invite comments…”

Sounds almost cosy. But if NCHS does rubber stamp the addition of Somatic symptom disorder to ICD-10-CM, it could leverage future replacement of the existing Somatoform disorders categories with this new, single diagnostic construct, bringing ICD-10-CM’s framework in line with DSM-5.

There are implications for ICD-11, too.

Once SSD is inserted into ICD-10-CM, the presence of this term within the U.S. modification of ICD-10 may make it easier for ICD-11 Revision Steering Group to justify approving proposals to replace the existing ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories with a single, new disorder construct that would mirror SSD’s defining characteristics – its positive psychobehavioural features, its simplified criteria, its de-emphasis on “medically unexplained” and facilitate harmonization between ICD-11 and DSM-5 disorder terms.

Christopher Chute, Mayo, chairs the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group. Chute has suggested that following implementation, ICD-10-CM might be brought gradually in line with ICD-11 through a series of annual updates, for smoother transition to ICD-11-CM.

Inserting the SSD term into ICD-10-CM paves the way for disorder construct congruency between DSM-5, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11, and eventually, the ICD-11-CM modification.

Send comments, by email, by June 20, to NCHS at nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov

 

CMS posts files for ICD-10-CM Release for 2015

On May 15, CMS posted the ICD-10 Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-PCS) files for 2015, download files here:

On May 19, CMS posted the ICD-10-CM and GEMs files for 2015:

These files (some of which are large ZIP files) include:

2015 Code Descriptions in Tabular Order

2015 Code Tables and Index – Updated 5/22/14 (includes Tabular List, and Index in PDF format)

2015 ICD-10-CM Duplicate Code Numbers

2015 Addendum

2015 General Equivalence Mappings (GEMs) – Diagnosis Codes and Guide

2015 Reimbursement Mappings – Diagnosis Codes and Guide

According to the Addendum, “There were no changes to the 2014 ICD-10-CM, therefore there are no 2015 ICD-10-CM Addenda.”

These ICD-10-CM Release for 2015 files are not yet available on the CDC site but when they are posted, they should be accessible from this page: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10cm.htm

 

Further reading

Justina Pelletier: The Case Continues Phil Hickey, April 4, 2014
Objection to proposal to insert DSM-5′s Somatic symptom disorder into ICD-10-CM Suzy Chapman, Public submission, ICD-9-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting September 18-19, 2013
Somatic Chapter Drops Centrality Of Unexplained Medical Symptoms Psychiatric News, Mark Moran, March 1, 2013
Somatic Symptoms Criteria in DSM-5 Improve Diagnosis, Care David J Kupfer, MD, Chair, DSM-5 Task Force, defends the SSD construct, Huffington Post, February 8, 2013
The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill Allen Frances, MD, BMJ 2013;346:f1580 BMJ Press Release PDF for full text
Somatic Symptom Disorder could capture millions more under mental health diagnosis Suzy Chapman, May 26, 2012
Mislabeling Medical Illness As Mental Disorder Allen Frances, MD, Psychology Today, DSM 5 in Distress, December 8, 2012
Why Did DSM 5 Botch Somatic Symptom Disorder? Allen Frances, MD, Psychology Today, Saving Normal, February 6, 2013
New Psych Disorder Could Mislabel Sick as Mentally Ill Susan Donaldson James, ABC News, February 27, 2013
%d bloggers like this: