1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
ME/CFS and Beating the Clock
For Jody Smith, the ticking of a clock was enough at one time to chase her back to her bed. But with the passage of time, she has been able to reclaim her living room ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Opposition to the Coalition 4 ME/CFS Proposal

Discussion in 'Action Alerts and Advocacy' started by rlc, Sep 16, 2011.

  1. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Hope, I do agree with you, but we are stakeholders and this relatively small group
    took it upon themselves to do this. This has been in the works for some time.
    It looks to me like the ME ICC came out and was much stronger than anyone
    had anticipated so they had to try to incorporate it to appease patients, but this
    does not seem to be a rational approach.

    The blanket CFSAC endorsement as proof of support? Many really have written off the CFSAC
    in general. They have hardly been on top of things. And even as such, have heard many
    CFSAC recommendations passed without the support of all members, so listing every CFSAC
    member from its inception as supporting this proposal seems disingenuous and misleading.

     
  2. Roy S

    Roy S former DC ME/CFS lobbyist

    Messages:
    441
    Likes:
    451
    Illinois, USA
    That revised FAQ states "It is very common for the ICD to group together illnesses that are different but similar."

    Is it common for them to be listed the ways that these are proposed to be listed?
     
  3. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Roy, that's what it states, but again, this is "their" assertion. All I see listed are a few patient groups.
    They they say there are professionals, but can't say who? Not really buying the posting of all CFSAC
    members who ever lived. If people supported it why wouldn't they say so? Or perhaps it's time
    to expect answers from them and stop playing these games.

    Perhaps this is true what they said, but this is NOT what they are doing, so this is not even
    the issue, just a red herring. They are trying to make them the same. It is obvious and no
    doubt they were up to this with their barrage of all ME/CFS.

    And what of the Pandora/coalition presentation and session from the conference? Lots of
    fanfare previously but have heard nothing about this. With complete and total secrecy,
    it is very suspicious. Should think even those who may agree would be concerned.
    It comes down to a matter of trust.

    And does the CAA support it? Again, dead silence. Hard to believe they knew nothing about this?

     
  4. usedtobeperkytina

    usedtobeperkytina Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes:
    186
    Clay, Alabama
    I think this is an example. G93.0

    Cerebral cysts.
    It applies to arachnoid cyst and porencphalic cyst (acquired)

    I notice that there are many entries that refer to G93.0, I see 10., actually 12.

    http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/G00-G99/G89-G99/G93-/G93.0

    For multiple sclerosis, there are different kinds: brain stem, cord or generalized. They are all coded the same.

    And of course, ME and PVFS are in the same code.

    Tina
     
  5. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Of course, but this is not what you did. You made them the same.


     
  6. Roy S

    Roy S former DC ME/CFS lobbyist

    Messages:
    441
    Likes:
    451
    Illinois, USA
    Demagogy: a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to prejudice, emotions, fear, and expectations...

    *skilled demagogues often need to use only special emphasis by which an uncritical listener will be led to draw the desired conclusion themselves"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy

    I used the above as my signature on the other forum for quite a while to try to alert people to the dangers of demagoguery in advocacy. It's a very destructive behavior that usually starts with creating doubt and builds to nurturing hate.
     
    ME agenda and SOC like this.
  7. sosumi

    sosumi

    Messages:
    27
    Likes:
    1
    What definition of CFS will be used?
     
  8. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Roy, No one is creating doubt. There is no doubt. It's not about similar conditions. They are
    making them the same so these examples do not apply. We know what they did.

    People are angry. We have 5 weeks to do what probably took them 5 months. So anger and
    mistrust are justified. This is not nurturing hatred.

    Nor demagogy. Rather misdirected hyperbole is just as bad.

     
  9. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Sosumi, this is HHS. So either Fukuda or empiric I suppose. This is not ME so playing
    this bait and switch with ME will not matter. CFS does not define a neurological illness.
    Trying to put a round peg in a square hole doesn't work.

     
  10. sosumi

    sosumi

    Messages:
    27
    Likes:
    1
    My concern is that they (the government) will apply the Empiric definition although Fukuda is not much better. Thereby connecting M.E. to the Empiric CFS. I can't see them using the International (M.E) or even Canadian criteria.

    I may have missed it, but I see nothing about any definition being attached to the CFS that is being proposed for G93.

    I would think one would have settled on a (strict) definition prior to asking for a particular code. That, in and of itself, shows that this proposition was not well thought out. Again, unless I missed something.

    PR is a part of this "Coalition." Would Cort or any of the hierarchy of PR care to explain this a little better? Why is Tina the only person in the coalition responding? I can see how some people diagnosed with CFS would want the G93 code and I don't blame them. But the Empirical Definition is really a stretch for a neurological illness.

    I have a CFS Dx now but do not see any problem with my physician changing it to M.E. when the new codes are adopted.
     
  11. Ernie

    Ernie *****

    Messages:
    118
    Likes:
    33
    And didn't one of the tweets about Unger say the CDC plan to use the Empirical definition? I think Cort may have been the one that tweeted it.
     
  12. Guido den Broeder

    Guido den Broeder *****

    Messages:
    278
    Likes:
    180
    Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    No, they are not. PVFS is the group name of G93.3, i.e. it IS the code, while ME is listed UNDER the code.
    Since (non-ME) CFS is not postviral, it should not be alongside ME in the table.
     
  13. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,591
    Likes:
    11,517
    South of England
    That's an interesting point.
    Is PVFS actually the name of the group, or is it just the first listed in the group?
    (That's a genuine question.)

    Guido, I would disagree with you here... I would not say that ME is post viral... I'm not aware of it being described as such, or there being any evidence for this.
    And if not, then why is ME listed under PVFS if PVFS is the name of the group? ME is not post viral, as far as I'm aware.
     
  14. Guido den Broeder

    Guido den Broeder *****

    Messages:
    278
    Likes:
    180
    Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    If you take a look at some other pages in the ICD-10, you'll get the picture.


    ME is post-herpes.


    You might want to read:

    Ramsay AM (1986), "Postviral Fatigue Syndrome. The saga of Royal Free disease", London, ISBN 0-906923-96-4
    Lerner M, Beqaj S, Fitzgerald JT, Gill K, Gill C, Edington J (2010), "Subset-directed antiviral treatment of 142 herpesvirus patients with chronic fatigue syndrome", Virus Adaptation and Treatment, May, Volume 2010:2, p.47-57


    Regards,

    Guido
     
  15. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    The proposal has it backwards. They are making them the same. (Note Tina's response about
    using or grouping similar conditions. This was dodging the issue.)

    This will ONLY eliminate true ME and ME will become CFS (just as it is in the UK).
    It will NOT change what CFS is, this is determined by the definition. So ME will become
    CFS(Fukuda/empiric). If terms are used interchangeably, they may use the term
    ME but it will MEAN CFS.

     
  16. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Good point Guido. Actually they are not. They continue these errors and
    build on them. It seems like they had an objective and tried to weave
    together a narrative to support it.

    The premise of the proposal is a declaration of fact that CFS is neurological.
    It is not or if anything would be mixed at best. So many with non neuro illnesses
    will be given the wrong code under their proposal. This will not help patients.
    And will not "MAKE" CFS neurological by some code magic or sleight of hand.


    Originally Posted by usedtobeperkytina
    "And of course, ME and PVFS are in the same code."

    Tina
     
  17. medfeb

    medfeb Senior Member

    Messages:
    170
    Likes:
    226
    Roy

    In the ICD-10, issued by the WHO, PVFS is listed at G93.3 with ME under it and CFS pointing to it - all three terms use the same exact code. All countries that I know of either use the ICD-10 directly or use a modification that uses G93.3 for all three terms. So without even looking at other diseases, this is exactly what WHO has done for PVFS, ME and CFS.

    The U.S. version of the ICD-10, called the ICD-10-CM, currently has CFS pointing to Chronic Fatigue under Signs and Symptoms under the R code. The only change that the proposal made was to repoint CFS from R53.82 to G93.3. The proposal does not ask for ME to be dropped or repointed. Making this change aligns the U.S. version of ICD-10 with how it is in every other country.

    I see this situation as exactly analogous to what happened in the UK when there was an attempt to place CFS under Neurasthenia. It wasn't allowed because the WHO ICD-10 lists CFS at G93.3
     
    Roy S likes this.
  18. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    -----
    Originally Posted by Roy S
    That revised FAQ states "It is very common for the ICD to group together illnesses that are different but similar."

    Is it common for them to be listed the ways that these are proposed to be listed?
     
  19. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Mary,

    But you all keep mixing it up. This is what Tina was saying also.
    That revised FAQ states "It is very common for the ICD to group
    together illnesses that are different but similar.

    This is not what you are doing. You are making them the same.
    Of course this fits with the constant ME=CFS=ME/CFS that Pandora has been
    rolling out for months.

    This will make ME into CFS, thus true ME will vanish. You say the intention
    was not to eliminate ME from the ICD but the result of what you are doing
    will be virtually the same. ME=CFS(Fukuda/empiric) or ME/CFS for short.

    Then you jump to somehow claiming that this will make CFS disappear and
    will all become ME-ICC. This is folly.

    Were there drs or med professionals who were involved that have
    to remain anonymous? I really do not follow why this would
    be the case.

    Thanks,

    Jill

    -----
    Originally Posted by Roy S
    That revised FAQ states "It is very common for the ICD to group together illnesses that are different but similar."Is it common for them to be listed the ways that these are proposed to be listed?
     
  20. medfeb

    medfeb Senior Member

    Messages:
    170
    Likes:
    226
    This is a great question, Sosumi and is at the heart of why we are in such a mess right now.

    First regarding the assertion in another post in this thread that CFS is not neurological - it is very true that the term CFS has been applied over time to people that have fatigue do to depression or other issues and as a result has ended up being a wastebasket of a diagnosis. But the Coalition proposal is not about that wastebasket of diseases. We are talking about the disease we call ME/CFS and sometimes CFS - a serious disease best described today by the ME-ICC or the Canadian Case Definition.

    Its clear that when properly defined, ME/CFS is a neurological illness. The evidence for this is:
    • there is a large body of scientific literature that demonstrates the underlying neurological pathologies and many of these articles are specifically demonstrating the difference between ME/CFS patients and depressed patients. These publications variously use the term ME/CFS or CFS. The Coalition proposal has a list of some of those studies over the last 10 years
    • the ME-ICC criteria, which defines a neurological disease, states that ME is sometimes referred to as CFS, indicating that they are talking about CFS as a neurological disease.
    • a number of ME/CFS experts have specifically stated publically that this is a neurological disease (e.g. Dr Komaroff - meeting with Mass CFIDS in 2010)

    Regarding your question of which case definition will be used
    My opinion:
    I believe the empirical definition has already been broadly denounced. Regarding Fukuda which is broadly used: Fukuda focuses on fatigue and leaves other symptoms which are central to the disease as optional. It was developed in 1994 and we've learned alot in the last 17 years. Its time for Fukuda to be replaced.

    So you are left with the Canadian Consensus Criteria and the ME-ICC. Each has its stengths and weaknesses as discussed in other threads in this and other forums (e.g. ME-ICC lacks diagnostic criteria - maybe that is in the physician guides that they haven't issued yet?). But both are a huge advancements over Fukuda and I think ME-ICC is the future.

    The bottom line - We need to advocate for the adoption of such a well defined case criteria and also well defined diagnostic criteria with objective biomarkers to go along with the case definition. That is the only way we are going to get the care that is needed.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page