ok so yes, by "the broader category of CFS" here, they appear to mean ICF [which, IMHO, is inappropriately and illegitimately called CFS). I'm quite sure that Coalition 4 ME/CFS means something quite different by CFS: that patients who have ME are being diagnosed with CFS [under an inappropriate name/inclusion] (and have been since Day 1 at Lake Tahoe)--this is what Andrew has been saying as well, if I'm not mistaken. USA needs an appropriate code for ME* and does not need an additional code for CFS/CF [ICF] when we already have other codes for ICF. (UK, on the other hand, needs to use their code for ME and stop conflating with neurasthenia/fatigue syndrome--which is something US wrote out of our CM long ago due to it being considered prejudicial how this condition is now viewed. I do not know the coding situations in Australia, Canada, etc.) *and it's thought we need to temporarily tag the name CFS, unfortunately, partly to link to all the research ICC/ICP cites and partly (this part is what I know the Coalition says) because it's not yet clear how we prove to Medicare that we have that (rules for disability benefits seem to be that you need to be proveably disabled and have a proveable diagnosis for some condition(s) which could plausibly cause your disability); CFS has a special dispensation saying tests are not absolutely required to prove the diagnosis, but ME doesn't--of course we have tests which would likely turn out abnormal but none we've all agreed are diagnostic and many of us can't get our docs to order them in any case, and they might not know how to interpret them if they did. I've been told the Coalition had people working on the Medicare end, to the end that we can drop the "/CFS" after this is fixed. I do not see the two (IC panel and Coaltion) as being in conflict at all.