1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

USA - NCHS/CDC Proposal for ICD-10-CM - adding SEID

Discussion in 'Disease coding' started by Sly Saint, Sep 28, 2018.

  1. Medfeb

    Medfeb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    558
    @Inara - The ICD-10-CM and disease name situation in the US is an mess. Historically, US medical education providers and doctors have used the term CFS even when the patient meets the CCC or the ME-ICC. But CFS is equated to the symptom of chronic fatigue so that impacts medical perception, insurance reimbursement and the ability to use medical records for research. The US is the only country to have equated CFS to CF. Every other country has it in the neurological chapter and it needed to be moved out of the symptom chapter.

    Regarding SEID - HHS does not "approve" disease names - the medical community does. So while HHS and some medical education providers have adopted the term "ME/CFS," a few medical education providers have incorporated the term SEID. So when doctors write the term "SEID" in a medical record, SEID would need to have a code in the ICD-10-CM.

    If SEID is to be added to the ICD-10-CM, the two options are 1) to add SEID as an inclusion under either CFS or ME or 2) to give SEID a separate code. The IOM was clear that SEID is narrower than CFS and various papers have discussed it being broader then ME as defined by the CCC or the ME-ICC. So including it under either CFS or ME would not be appropriate.

    Besides for the SEID term issue, we also have a challenge when doctors use the term "ME/CFS." As I understand it, the coder will have to apply both the CFS and the ME codes to the medical record. Its unclear what impact that will have on reimbursement but if will impact research using medical records.

    Ughh
     
    Trish, JaimeS, Webdog and 3 others like this.
  2. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
  3. Alison Orr

    Alison Orr Established Member

    Messages:
    14
  4. Dx Revision Watch

    Dx Revision Watch Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,324
  5. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,145
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    adambeyoncelowe, Sly Saint and Trish like this.
  6. Dx Revision Watch

    Dx Revision Watch Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,324
    So I see from Jen's Tweets and from her replies to others.

    But #MEActNet and @JaimeS were first asked, by several of us, nearly a week ago whether #MEActNet intends to publish a position statement. To the best of my knowledge, no spokesperson for #MEActNet has acknowledged these enquiries.
     
    Alison Orr likes this.
  7. JaimeS

    JaimeS Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,248
    Location:
    Stanford, CA
    Nearly a week ago you contacted me? I've been at a conference for the past week!

    [Edit: I've checked my email and tweets and see nothing from you. So do you mean when Slysaint used @ here? Or did you alert me somewhere and I've missed it?]
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2018
    NelliePledge and adambeyoncelowe like this.
  8. JaimeS

    JaimeS Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,248
    Location:
    Stanford, CA
    Ah, the clonidine ppl who thought ME was anxiety until they gave adolescents anti-anxiety meds.

    I'm a little unclear what they're comparing the IOM criteria to.

    At first it says that adolescents had to be chronically fatigued and meet no other criteria, which sounds to me like they're comparing IOM to Oxford.

    Then, it says:

    To rule out other diseases? So still Oxford?

    But wait...

    So this is 'unexplained fatigue that is serious'.

    Then they say that actually recruitment was more complex and they direct the reader here to learn more about how that went down: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1827799

    And finally we see that they cite the NICE guidelines as followed by clinicians. That's how they made their diagnosis.

    So, it's NICE vs SEID?

    For heaven's sake that was challenging to find.

    OK since presumably loose and ill-defined stuff like NICE tends to select for less debility, I'll believe that anyone diagnosed by SEID will likely be worse off on most measures, and anyone diagnosed via ICC will be yet worse off.
     
  9. JaimeS

    JaimeS Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,248
    Location:
    Stanford, CA
    Yeah I wish I understood it better. I'm guessing this is why they wanted to move it, but we'd have to talk to someone who made the suggestion. It's an important conversation to have.
     
  10. JaimeS

    JaimeS Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,248
    Location:
    Stanford, CA
    I think it does, though? At least, it suggests SEID be included and that it be a separate thing.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2018
  11. JaimeS

    JaimeS Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,248
    Location:
    Stanford, CA
    #MEAction doesn't automatically assume a position typically -- unless it's something we know the community agrees on, like CBT or GET. Instead, we do as we did with deciding what name we'd use in our communications (ME) and poll the community to form our position.

    Sometimes that doesn't work, and we have to act or lose an opportunity. Then we move swiftly, as with the HHS protest (two days?!) or a few reactions we've had to the CDC's work.

    I think Revision Watch has been keeping an eye on these issues for a very long time, and has all the background at hir fingertips. It's important information. I also think we should look at the pros and cons of the move, which I'm not sure I've heard anyone lay out, yet, though we have pieces.

    IOM says SEID and CFS are not the same, so attempts to separate them? Moving stuff away from neurasthenia?

    But there are those who worry about SEID 'gaining a foothold' in tangible ways. That's probably the reason they don't want ANYTHING about SEID located anywhere official.

    Is that it in a nutshell, or have I mischaracterized?
     
  12. Alison Orr

    Alison Orr Established Member

    Messages:
    14
    But your website says you campaign on the basis of ICC (I’m paraphrasing). So wouldn’t an attempt to legitimise SEID warrant a response?
     
  13. JaimeS

    JaimeS Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,248
    Location:
    Stanford, CA
    These are case studies, studies run by patient charities, and other studies that ppl would consider of low quality. I think that we had no choice but to do low-funded, poor-quality research with no funding; but that doesn't make the research more acceptable. I also think that there IS neuroinflammation in ME, personally, but we'd have to get some high-powered studies before we could say we've proved it's the case.
     
  14. JaimeS

    JaimeS Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,248
    Location:
    Stanford, CA
    You are paraphrasing. #MEAction hasn't taken a stance on which criteria the community prefers because -- as stated above -- we have not yet polled the community.
     
  15. Alison Orr

    Alison Orr Established Member

    Messages:
    14
    Interesting. In reply to my open letter to MEAction and Jen Brea, Adriane Tillman said:

    “For diagnostic criteria, #MEAction promotes the use of the CCC/ICC diagnostic criteria as you can see by its listing on our patients page, on our researchers and clinicians page, on our Reports & Facts Sheets page (right above the IOM report), and in our brochure.”



    That sounds rather like a stance to me.

    Accepting that is a stance, I’ll repeat my question:

    In light of MEAction’s stance on promoting the use of the CCC/ICC for diagnostic criteria, doesn’t the attempt to legitimise SEID warrant a response? Especially from an organisation that uses ME in its name?
     
  16. Dx Revision Watch

    Dx Revision Watch Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,324
  17. Dx Revision Watch

    Dx Revision Watch Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,324
  18. Dx Revision Watch

    Dx Revision Watch Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,324

    So does #MEActNet intend to run a consultation process and submit a formal response to the meeting proposals?

    The deadline for comments is November 13.
     
  19. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,731
    I think I'm missing something. Wasn't the suggestion to give three different codes (SEID, CFS and ME) nested under post-viral fatigue syndrome? So doesn't the inclusion of SEID mean it's actually separated from ME, rather than replacing it?
     
    WillowJ, JaimeS, ScottTriGuy and 2 others like this.
  20. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,731
    On this note, it's occurred to me: wouldn't removing the SEID coding suggestion actually do more to conflate ME and SEID?

    At present, doctors are using a dozen or so diagnostic criteria, but if they only have one code to use, then everyone will be conflated, regardless of criteria used. Whether it's ICC, CCC, IOM, Oxford, or whatever, they'd all get the same coding.

    Wouldn't it be more useful to stratify patients in the coding system, so that we can separate the SEID from the CFS from the ME?
     
    WillowJ, JaimeS, ScottTriGuy and 2 others like this.

Share This Page