New: Online ICD-10 Version for 2010

New: Online ICD-10 Version for 2010

Post #106 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1jm

The information in this report refers only to the existing international WHO ICD-10 and not to the forthcoming ICD-11 or to any country specific, clinical modification of ICD-10.

New: Online ICD-10 Version for 2010

I reported some months ago that according to documentation from WHO-FIC meeting materials, it was understood that a version of ICD-10 for 2010 was planned to be published online by WHO, Geneva, earlier this year.

This would replace the ICD-10 online version for 2007 and incorporate all the annual updates to ICD-10 from 2007 to 2010.

This is now up online.

A searchable version of ICD-10 for 2010 is available at this URL:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en

International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision

It is presented on a platform similar to the platform being used for the ICD-11 Alpha Draft, that is, a list of ICD-10 Chapters on the left side of the screen, arranged with hierarchical parent > child categories, with the category codings set out on the right side of the screen.

This is the URL for ICD Title term G93.3 Postviral fatigue syndrome:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/G93.3

If “Chronic fatigue syndrome” is entered into the Search box, a drop down reads:

“Syndrome – fatigue – chronic – G93.3”

(Which is the way it is set out in Volume 3 The Alphabetical Index.)

Mouse hover over the orange square on the left of the dark blue drop down and the “Alt text” reads:

“Found in Index”

There is a User Guide for ICD-10 Version: 2010 but the platform is not difficult to navigate, just select a chapter and click on the little grey arrows to display parent class and Title term categories and their child categories – you can’t break anything:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/Help

Those of us with websites that have URLs pointing to specific ICD-10 version for 2007 categories will need to adjust URLs for the new platform, as code specific URLs are pointing only to the ICD-10 Version: 2010 opening page, for example:

what displayed in ICD-10 version for 2007 at this path:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gg90.htm+g933

would need updating to:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/G93.3

and the Chapter V entry for the F40-48 categories:

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

would need updating to:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F40-F48

or

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F45.0

to point to F45 Somatoform Disorders

or

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F48.0

to point to F48.0 Neurasthenia.

Compiled by Suzy Chapman


Medical Classification WHO ICD codes by Mary Schweitzer

Medical Classification WHO ICD codes by Mary Schweitzter

Post #105 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1j9

Mary Schweitzer

October 14, 2011

There has of late been speculation that it would be bad for U.S. patients if CFS and M.E. were placed in the same category in the neurology chapter of ICD-10-CM, the “clinical manual” of ICD-10 that will be adopted for use in the United States.

But the fact of the matter is that in ICD-10, CFS already IS coded to G93.3, “PVFS and M.E.” in the index, which is as authoritative as the tabular version. [PVFS stands for Post-Viral Fatigue Syndrome, and is not diagnosed very frequently any more – not at all in the U.S.]. It already IS coded in neurology.

110 nations use ICD-10 as-is, including the UK. Australia has a clinical version that does not alter the codes for M.E. or CFS. But Canada and Germany have clinical versions that place CFS in the tabular version of ICD-10, in G93.3 with M.E. In fact, it was the Canadian clinical version, ICD-10-CA, which led to the highly regarded Canadian Consensus Criteria for ME/CFS in 2003.

NOBODY EXCEPT THE UNITED STATES CODES CFS IN THE “R” CHAPTER. If we coded CFS at R53.82, which was the plan of NCHS, we would have been the ONLY nation in the world to do so.

Furthermore, M.E. is not a known diagnosis in the U.S. (WE know about it, but very few doctors do.) There is no definition for it approved by CDC. We can now point to the new definition that was published in the Journal of Internal Medicine, but that is more likely to enable researchers in the US and Canada to use M.E. if they want to, than to trickle down to U.S. clinicians [1]. Part of the problem is that when M.E. replaced atypical polio as a disease name in British commonwealth nations and Europe, in the U.S. the new name was epidemic neuromyesthenia, which has not (to my knowledge) been diagnosed in decades.

So if CFS gets coded as R53.82 in the U.S.’s ICD-10-CM, yes, M.E. will be less likely to confuse with CFS – but that would only be in the U.S., and in the U.S. we only get diagnosed with that revolting name CFS anyway. At least we could get them scratching their heads and asking, “What is M.E.?” if both diseases were placed together where those of you outside the U.S. already have it.

Given that U.S. doctors do not have a high opinion of CFS, keeping it under “R” in “vague signs and symptoms” would only reinforce their prejudice against it as a “garbage diagnosis” – something you diagnose when you run out of ideas.

Finally, there was an inadvertent error in an earlier Co-Cure message about getting CFS out of the “R” category. The “R” category is not for psychiatric diagnoses.

British psychiatrists use “fatigue syndrome,” which is coded at F48.0 under neuroses at “neurasthenia.”. Then when they write about it, they mix and match terms so it looks as if CFS is the same thing, and therefore it goes in F48.0. That is a serious problem in the UK. [I have to admit to being alarmed recently when a U.S. virologist connected CFS not to the history of atypical polio, which is pretty well established, but to the arcane nineteenth century diagnosis of neurasthenia. Please don’t do that!]

We are not (I hope) in current danger of being coded under neuroses at F48.0, neurasthenia, in the U.S. But the “R” diagnosis is sufficiently vague that it wouldn’t be difficult to use it to claim CFS patients really have CSSD (Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder), the category British psychiatrist and CBT advocate Michael Sharpe is trying to shoehorn into DSM-5, the new version of the American Psychiatric Association’s huge diagnostic tome. So it does leave us vulnerable [2].

To those outside the U.S. I would say, look to ICD-11. That’s what will affect you the most. To those in the U.S. (where we are finally getting around to adopting ICD-10-CM two decades after ICD-10 was written), what WE need is simply to get in step with the rest of the world now.

Mary M. Schweitzer PhD

Related material

[1] New International Consensus Criteria for M.E., Journal of Internal Medicine

Volume 270, Issue 4, pages 327–338, October 2011

Carruthers, B. M., van de Sande, M. I., De Meirleir, K. L., Klimas, N. G., Broderick, G., Mitchell, T., Staines, D., Powles, A. C. P., Speight, N., Vallings, R., Bateman, L., Baumgarten-Austrheim, B., Bell, D. S., Carlo-Stella, N., Chia, J., Darragh, A., Jo, D., Lewis, D., Light, A. R., Marshall-Gradisbik, S., Mena, I., Mikovits, J. A., Miwa, K., Murovska, M., Pall, M. L. and Stevens, S. (2011), Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. Journal of Internal Medicine, 270: 327–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x

Abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x/abstract

Full text in html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x/full

Full text in PDF
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x/pdf

Or Open PDF here:  International ME Consensus Criteria

[2] DSM-5 Development: Somatic Symptom Disorders

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

Extracts: ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting Summary document (CFS coding)

Extracts: ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting Summary of Diagnosis Presentations September 14, 2011 (CFS Coding)

Post #104 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1iN

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

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

Summary of Volumes 1 and 2, Diagnosis Presentations
September 14, 2011

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

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

Donna Pickett, co-chair of the committee, welcomed the members of the audience to the diagnosis portion of the meeting. She reviewed the timeline included at the beginning of the topic packet informing the attendees of the deadline for written comments on topics presented at this meeting. All diagnosis topics presented during the meeting are being considered for October 1, 2013 implementation.

Written comments must be received by NCHS staff by November 18, 2011. Ms. Pickett requested that comments be sent via electronic mail to the following email address nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov since regular mail is often delayed. Contact information for all NCHS staff and the NCHS website are included in the topic packet. Attendees were also reminded that the full topic packet is currently posted on the NCHS website.

[…]

Page 2

Comments and discussion on the topics presented on September 14, 2011 were as follows:

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Mary Dimmock representing the Coalition 4 ME/CFS gave a presentation on the Coalition’s understanding of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) as well as their proposal. They presented additional options for coding of these two diagnoses. NCHS responded that since they were not aware of this additional option, until today’s meeting, the proposal would remain with the two options offered (one from NCHS and one from the requestor).

There were many comments from the audience including the following:

There was general support for NCHS proposed option 2, moving CFS to ICD-10-CM Chapter 6, Diseases of the Nervous System but retaining separate codes for CFS vs. ME. Reasons given for retaining separate codes included agreement that it is important to retain ability to do data extraction on the two conditions separately vs. combining them if desired. In addition, the CFS may not always be able to be identified as postviral.

Though the requestor had asked to have the term “benign” deleted from inclusion term “benign myalgic encephalomyelitis,” NCHS indicated it should remain somewhere at G93.3 to maintain compatibility with WHO ICD-10. Comments on this indicated that it should be added to proposed new code G93.31 with benign as a nonessential modifier.

[Ed: It was suggested at the meeting that the modifier “Benign” might appear in parentheses at the end of  “Myalgic encephalomyelitis”.]

It was recommended to change the excludes2 note, at proposed new code G93.32, to an exludes1 since it is not likely that one would have both chronic fatigue syndrome and a chronic fatigue, NOS from some other condition. There is no need to code chronic fatigue NOS separate from the CFS.

There was a general question asked about how this request can be considered for October 1, 2012 since it is not a new disease. There was also general support that if the change is approved to move CFS from Chapter 18, code R53.82, to a code within Chapter 6 it should occur in time for the October 1, 2013 implementation of ICD-10-CM.

There was general agreement, by those in the audience, that the term “myalgic encephalomyelitis” is not seen in medical records.

One commenter, representing Coalition4 ME/CFS indicated that ME and CFS should not be separated since it goes against the definition of the 2011 ME ICC (an international committee). Her opinion was that treatment is the same for both conditions, literature refers to ME and CFS together, and that the U.S. is behind the international recognition of these two conditions being the same.

[…]

The audience was asked to carefully review the proposals following the meeting and to submit written comments by the November 18, 2011 deadline.

[Extract ends]

Comments on proposals need to be submitted by November 18.

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

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

Related material:

1] Full NCHS meeting Proposals document:

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

2] Full NCHS meeting Summary document:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coalition4ME/CFS initiative

ICD-10-CM

 

CFSAC discusses ICD-10-CM coding concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. lags behind

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

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

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

 

CFSAC new Recommendation to HHS

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

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

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

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

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

 

What are the current proposals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 18  (Symptoms and signs and ill defined conditions)

[…]

R53.8 Other malaise and fatigue

R53 Malaise and fatigue

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

Excludes1: postviral fatigue syndrome (G93.3)

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this a new proposal?

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

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

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

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

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

 

What is the ICD “R code” chapter for?

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

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

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

 

Dustbin Diagnosis

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

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

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

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

 

ICD-10-CM CFS CF

 

Have representations been made to the NCHS Committee?

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

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

 

Coalition4ME/CFS initiative

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

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

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

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

 

http://coalition4mecfs.org/ICDPR.html

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

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

 

What is the Coalition4ME/CFS proposing?

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

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

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

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

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

 

September 14 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting

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

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

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

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

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

Meeting presentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Coming up…

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

 

Footnotes and related postings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heading: ICD-10-CM Files – 2011 release

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

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

Open or save this directory file:

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

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

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

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

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

25 September 2011

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

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

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

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

Dx Revision Watch is not an organisation.

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

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

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

On my ME agenda website Disclaimer page it also states:

ME agenda is not an organisation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suzy Chapman
_____________________

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

Three days left before the second DSM-5 stakeholder review period closes

Three days left before the second DSM-5 stakeholder review period closes

Post #97 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1eA

On June 16, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) announced an extension to its second public stakeholder review of draft proposals for categories and criteria for the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which will be known as “DSM-5”.

The closing date for submissions is now Friday, July 15.

There are just three more days left in which to submit letters of concern in response to potentially damaging proposals being put forward by the Work Group for “Somatic Symptom Disorders” – the DSM-5 committee charged with the revision of existing DSM-IV “Somatoform Disorders” categories. 

Today, patient advocate, Caroline Davis, has sent me a copy of her letter for inclusion on this site. Ms Davis tells me she has made her submission available for other patients to use.

If you haven’t already submitted a comment, please do, however brief. You’ll find  information on making submissions in this post: http://tinyurl.com/DSM-5-register-to-comment.

Proposed criteria and two key documents are posted here: http://wp.me/pKrrB-13z.

For examples of other letters of concern, you’ll find copies of this year’s submissions, including the Coalition4ME/CFS’s resource materials and template letter, collated here: http://wp.me/PKrrB-19a. These include letters of concern from international patient organizations, professional stakeholders, patients, patient advocates and professional bodies.

If you have already submitted but have other points to make, please submit a second response. 

If you know an informed professional please alert them today to the implications for patients with ME, CFS, IBS, FM, CI, CS, Gulf War illness and other illnesses that are bundled under the “Functional Somatic Syndromes” and “Medically Unexplained” umbrellas.

If the Work Group’s current proposals are approved, these illnesses will be sitting ducks for an additional mental health diagnosis of a “Somatic Symptom Disorder”.

If you haven’t yet registered your concerns, please get a letter in before the feedback period closes on July 15!

Submission by patient advocate, Caroline Davis

J 00 Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder

I would like to express my deep concern about the proposed new category of Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD) in DSM-5 scheduled for release in 2013.

CSSD proposes to add a mental health diagnosis to any condition where the sufferer has been ill for more than six months, and has developed ‘excessive’ concern about his or her health.

Since most good employers have a sick leave scheme which pays full or most-of-full pay for six months, this timeframe coincides most unhealthily with:

a) The individual’s realisation that their illness might not resolve, and/or might possibly be a disability and

b) A concerted effort to research their condition and seek more tests and treatments in order to get well and

c) The looming possibility of job loss, financial penury and the imminent need to make insurance or disability claims.

A patient in such a situation is likely to fall slap-bang within the CSSD criteria of:

(2) Disproportionate and persistent concerns about the medical seriousness of one’s symptoms and

(3) Excessive time and energy devoted to these symptoms or health concerns

The effect is to automatically deliver a diagnosis for an Axis I psychiatric disorder, simply for finding out what is causing one’s symptoms after such a long time of being ill, and wanting to do the best one can in order to get well and save one’s job and prospects for the future.

There is no empirical data to support the existence of ‘CSSD’. I believe that it is neither clinically safe nor morally right to force through un-researched, untried, untested (and possibly entirely inaccurate) diagnostic criteria for an entirely un-researched, untested (and possibly false) psychiatric condition. As your paper itself says, CSSD is merely ‘a construct’. There is no empirical evidence to support this ‘construct’ but plenty of circumstantial and factual evidence for why this ‘construct’ has been proposed and is being pushed forward with such unseemly speed.

Most patients are sick, but not stupid. We were managers, scientists, teachers, medical people, civil servants and business people in our former lives, and we still have functioning brains. We can see that names on the DSM committee considering CSSD include those in the pay of insurance companies and Governments (including the UK medical establishment). We also know that the implications of DSM-5 will extend to the next version of WHO.

There are those on your committee who wish only to do the bidding of their financial paymasters, and they are doing this by creating diagnoses such as ‘CSSD’ which will allow insurance companies and Government agencies to deny the claims of the genuinely sick and disabled. I urge the rest of the committee members not to allow them to do this, and to remain faithful to the objectives of WHO classifications as an excellent source of unbiased medical knowledge for the guidance of medical practitioners across the world.

Please do not let the DSM – and by implication the WHO classifications – become the vehicle of Governments and insurance companies to get their financial needs met.

I urge the committee to see past the claim that: a ‘diagnosis of CSSD could be applied to any patient with any diagnosis’. In clinical practice, as well as in your own discussions, it is already clear that this ‘diagnosis’ would be applied far more readily to patients already vilified for having conditions for which there is no objective medical test, eg: IBS, ME/CFS, FM, Gulf War Syndrome, interstitial cystitis, long-term pain and others. I urge the committee to examine the level of medical research funding dedicated to these conditions: they will find that funding for biomedical research has been restricted to bare, minimal levels for the past thirty years, which goes a long way toward explaining why there are no differential medical tests for these conditions yet. The solution is more and better biomedical research, not to create a new ‘bucket’ classification to financially manage-away these conditions.

I urge the committee to consider the consequences of moving too fast to approve a classification which is likely to be immediately pejorative to patients. The inclusion of ‘CSSD’ as a possibility for diagnosis will tap into the already hysterical media and ‘biopsychosocial’ research claims and pronouncements about these misunderstood and underestimated conditions.

The consequences – unintended by those whose moral conscience on DSM-5 is clear, and jauntily dismissed by those for whom recognition of these conditions would be financially and politically injurious – are likely to be catastrophic. They include: sceptical medical practitioners who will increasingly believe that it is OK not to test and treat, nor to provide appropriate care, nor to support disability benefit claims; and insurance companies who continue to charge huge premiums and would (with CSSD in place) be free to dismiss valid claims for some of the sickest people they serve.

Not only is this not an appropriate route to management or cure for such patients, but the consequences will quickly spiral into poverty, physical distress and in some cases preventable death.

Even if a patient should subsequently recover, the stigma of a mental health diagnosis is likely to legislate against the possibility of future employment and full reconstruction of a career at pre-illness levels. Thus it would have a direct economic effect on both the individual and the economy.

How much is CSSD really about the management of sickness and disability in patients by doctors and health service professionals, and how much is it the product of financial machinations by insurance companies and Governments seeking to minimise liability for medical care and disability?

While there is such a dearth of properly-conducted research (by non-partisan medical scientists) into the medical validity, applicability and usefulness of CSSD as a diagnosis; and while the likelihood of rushing into including it is likely to have such potentially dire consequences for patients (and, through effects on reputation and liability, also for medical practitioners) I request and appeal for CSSD to be omitted from the DSM-5.

Yours sincerely

Caroline Davis

Patient, advocate

  

Second DSM-5 public review of draft criteria

The closing date for comments in the second DSM-5 public review has been extended to July 15.

Register to submit feedback via the DSM-5 Development website here: http://tinyurl.com/Somatic-Symptom-Disorders

Once registered, log in with username and password and go to page: http://tinyurl.com/DSM-5-CSSD

Copies of this year’s submissions are being collated here: http://wp.me/PKrrB-19a