Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
1. “If the policy refers to functional somatic syndromes in addition to mental health, then CFS may fall within the exclusion.If the policy doesn’t refer to functional somatic syndromes as well as mental health then it would be difficult to apply.”
2. “The point made is that a diagnosis of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or ME (a term often used colloquially instead of CFS) is considered a neurological condition according to the arrangement of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnostic codes whereas CFS can alternatively be defined as neurasthenia which is in the mental health chapter of ICD10.”
Observations
...
- These 2 points appear to be inconsistent with the WHO ICD classifications.
- Point 1 seems to be inconsistent with point 2. In point 1 it states that CFS could not fall under the mental health exclusion but in point 2 it states it could be defined as neurasthenia (mental health).
Yes, it does seem contradictory, doesn't it. First they say that it would be 'difficult' to claim that CFS is a mental health condition, and then they say that "CFS can alternatively be defined as neurasthenia", which is categorised as mental health in ICD-10.
But, according to the ICD-10, CFS is not alternatively named as neurasthenia. 'Fatigue Syndrome' is listed under neurasthenia, but not CFS. In the index of the ICD-10, CFS links to ME.
And 'Postviral fatigue syndrome' (under which ME is categorised) is excluded from the 'neurasthenia' category in the ICD-10.
I'd like to see their justification for claiming that CFS is equivalent to neurasthenia. I wouldn't have thought that it would stand up in a court, if an insurance company refused payment by trying to claim that CFS is neurasthenia. Especially in the UK, where the NHS uses the name 'CFS/ME'.
It's interesting to see evidence of (small 'p') politics at play, and why names and categorisations make a big difference for financial vested interests.