CFSAC announces dates of Spring meeting

CFSAC announces dates of Spring meeting

Post #160 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-240

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC)

http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/index.html

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 on issues related to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). These include:

• factors affecting access and care for persons with CFS;
• the science and definition of CFS; and
• broader public health, clinical, research and educational issues related to CFS.

Administrative and management support for CFSAC activities is provided by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH). However, staffing will continue to be provided primarily from the Office on Women’s Health, which is part of OASH.

Dr. Nancy C. Lee, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health – Women’s Health, is the Designated Federal Officer for CFSAC.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) Spring Meeting

http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/advcomcfs-cfsacmeeting.html

The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC), 2012 spring meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. EST and Thursday, June 14, 2012 from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. EST.

The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 800, Washington, D.C. 20201. For directions please visit
http://www.hhs.gov/about/hhhmap.html .

The meeting will be webcast live and available by audio (listening-only). Additional information and the CFSAC agenda will be posted to the CFSAC website by June 4, 2012.

Update: May 24, 2012

Above notice now reads:

The meeting will provide a live video stream and be available by audio (listening only). Additional information and the CFSAC agenda will be posted to the CFSAC website by June 4, 2012. Instructions for public testimony will be provided at a later date in a Federal Register Notice. We are not accepting requests or testimony at this time.

 

Related material

Most recent CFSAC postings:

CFSAC November 8-9, 2011 meeting: Minutes and Recommendations to HHS posted (January 14, 2012)

CFSAC November 2011 meeting: videos, presentations and Day One Agenda item (December 27, 2011)

International Classification of Diseases – Clinical Modification (ICD-CM): Presentation by Donna Pickett, RHIA, MPH, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

Reminder: Comment period on ICD-10-CM proposed delay ends May 17

Reminder: Comment period on ICD-10-CM proposed delay ends May 17

Post #159 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-23H

On April 9, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued a proposed rule calling for a one year delay in the ICD-10-CM/PCS compliance deadline.

The proposed rule would postpone the compliance date by which providers and industry have to adopt ICD-10-CM by one year, from October 1, 2013 to October 1, 2014. 

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April 17, followed by a 30 day period during which CMS will take comments.

Comments should be submitted to HHS no later than 5:00 pm ET on May 17, 2012.

 

Proposed Rule

The Proposed Rule documentation can be found on this page in PDF and HTML formats:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CMS-2012-0043-0001

Administrative Simplification: Adoption of a Standard for a Unique Health Plan Identifier; Addition to the National Provider Identifier Requirements; and a Change to the Compliance Date for ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS Medical Data Code Sets

Document ID: CMS-2012-0043-0001 Document Type: Proposed Rule
Docket ID: CMS-2012-0043 RIN:

More information on the proposed rule is available from this CMS fact sheet

HHS PROPOSES ONE-YEAR DELAY OF ICD-10 COMPLIANCE DATE (CMS-0040-P)

Submitting comment

Submitting comment by post:

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: CMS–0040–P
P.O. Box 8013
Baltimore, MD 21244–8013

Submitting comment online:

Go to the Federal Regulations website, here:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CMS-2012-0043-0001

Hit the Submit a Comment button, top right of web page

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=CMS-2012-0043-0001

For delivery by hand see the Alternate Ways to Comment pop up, top right of Submit a Comment page.

Related material

Press release: April 9, 2012

Summary Proposal Rule

This proposed rule would implement section 1104 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (hereinafter referred to as the Affordable Care Act) by establishing new requirements for administrative transactions that would improve the utility of the existing Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) transactions and reduce administrative burden and costs. It proposes the adoption of the standard for a national unique health plan identifier (HPID) and requirements or provisions for the implementation of the HPID. This rule also proposes the adoption of a data element that will serve as an other entity identifier (OEID), an identifier for entities that are not health plans, health care providers, or “individuals,” that need to be identified in standard transactions. This proposed rule would also specify the circumstances under which an organization covered health care provider must require certain noncovered individual health care providers who are prescribers to obtain and disclose an NPI. Finally, this rule proposes to change the compliance date for the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) for diagnosis coding, including the Official ICD-10-CM Guidelines for Coding and Reporting, and the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-PCS) for inpatient hospital procedure coding, including the Official ICD-10-PCS Guidelines for Coding and Reporting, from October 1, 2013 to October 1, 2014. 

HHS proposes one year delay for ICD-10-CM compliance

HHS proposes one year delay for ICD-10-CM compliance

Post #156 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-22q

Yesterday, April 9, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued a proposed rule calling for a one year delay in the ICD-10-CM/PCS compliance deadline.

According to a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) press release, the proposed rule would postpone the compliance date by which providers and industry have to adopt ICD-10-CM by one year, from October 1, 2013 to October 1, 2014. 

Official publication of the proposed rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register on April 17, followed by a 30 day period during which CMS will take comments.

Full proposal document (pre-publication PDF version)

      http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-08718_PI.pdf

or at:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-08718.pdf

This document is scheduled to be published in the
Federal Register on 04/17/2012 and available online at
http://federalregister.gov/a/2012-08718 , and on FDsys.gov

Press release issued April 9, 2012:

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/04/20120409a.html

Details for: NEW HEALTH CARE LAW PROVISIONS CUT RED TAPE, SAVE UP TO $4.6 BILLION

For Immediate Release: Monday, April 09, 2012
Contact: CMS Office of Public Affairs
202-690-6145

NEW HEALTH CARE LAW PROVISIONS CUT RED TAPE, SAVE UP TO $4.6 BILLION

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced a proposed rule that would establish a unique health plan identifier under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The proposed rule would implement several administrative simplification provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

The proposed changes would save health care providers and health plans up to $4.6 billion over the next ten years, according to estimates released by the HHS today. The estimates were included in a proposed rule that cuts red tape and simplifies administrative processes for doctors, hospitals and health insurance plans.

“The new health care law is cutting red tape, making our health care system more efficient and saving money,” Secretary Sebelius said. “These important simplifications will mean doctors can spend less time filling out forms and more time seeing patients.”

Currently, when health plans and entities like third party administrators bill providers, they are identified using a wide range of different identifiers that do not have a standard length or format. As a result, health care providers run into a number of time-consuming problems, such as misrouting of transactions, rejection of transactions due to insurance identification errors, and difficulty determining patient eligibility.

The rule simplifies the administrative process for providers by proposing that health plans have a unique identifier of a standard length and format to facilitate routine use in computer systems. This will allow provider offices to automate and simplify their processes, particularly when processing bills and other transactions.

The proposed rule also delays required compliance by one year– from Oct. 1, 2013, to Oct. 1, 2014– for new codes used to classify diseases and health problems. These codes, known as the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes, or ICD-10, will include new procedures and diagnoses and improve the quality of information available for quality improvement and payment purposes.

Many provider groups have expressed serious concerns about their ability to meet the Oct. 1, 2013, compliance date. The proposed change in the compliance date for ICD-10 would give providers and other covered entities more time to prepare and fully test their systems to ensure a smooth and coordinated transition to these new code sets.

The proposed rule announced today is the third in a series of administrative simplification rules in the new health care law. HHS released the first in July of 2011 and the second in January of 2012, and plans to announce more in the coming months.

More information on the proposed rule is available on fact sheets at

http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/fact_sheets.asp

The proposed rule may be viewed at www.ofr.gov/inspection.aspx . Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Media coverage:

MedPage Today

HHS Announces ICD-10 Delay

Joyce Frieden, News Editor, MedPage Today | April 09, 2012

 

ICD10 Watch

Breaking News: HHS proposes 1-year delay in ICD-10 implementation deadline

Carl Natale | April 09, 2012

 

Healthcare Finance News

HHS proposes one-year ICD-10 delay

Tom Sullivan, Government Health IT | April 10, 2012

Update on timelines: DSM-5, ICD-11, ICD-10-CM

Update on timelines: DSM-5, ICD-11, ICD-10-CM

Post #155 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-21N

Update @ April 10, 2012: CMS issues press release – proposes one year delay for ICD-10-CM compliance

See: http://wp.me/pKrrB-22q for press release and full Proposal document

I will update as more information becomes available.

DSM-5

The DSM-5 clinical settings field trials, scheduled to complete by December, last year, but extended in order that more participants might be recruited, were expected to conclude this March. (Source: DSM-5 Disorganization, Disarray, and Delays, Dr Dayle Jones, American Counseling Association, January 3, 2012)

In November, DSM-5 Task Force Vice-chair, Darrel Regier, MD, predicted the pushing back of the final public review and comment period for revised draft diagnostic criteria from January-February to “no later than May 2012,” in response to DSM-5 timeline slippage and delays in completion of the field trials. (Source: APA Answers DSM-5 Critics, Deborah Brauser, November 9, 2011)

The timeline on the DSM-5 Development site was updated to reflect a “Spring” posting of draft diagnostic criteria but thus far, APA has released no firm date for a final public review and feedback exercise in May.

The second release of draft proposals was posted on May 4, last year, with no prior announcement or news release by APA and caught professional bodies, patient organizations and advocates unprepared.

It is hoped that APA will give reasonable notice before releasing their third and final draft – though how much influence professional and public feedback might have at this late stage in the DSM-5 development process is moot.

DSM-5 is slated for publication in May 2013.

Extract from revised Timeline

Spring 2012: Revised draft diagnostic criteria will be posted on www.dsm5.org and open to a third public feedback period for 2 months. Feedback will be shared directly with work group members, and further edits to proposals will be made as needed.

The full DSM-5 Timeline (as it stands at April 8, 2012) can be found here.

 

ICD-11

The current timeline schedules presentation of the ICD-11 to the World Health Assembly in May 2015 – a year later than the 2009 timeline.

According to a paper published by Christopher Chute, MD, (Chair, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group) et al, implementation of ICD-11 is now expected around 2016. (Source: Chute CG, Huff SM, Ferguson JA, Walker JM, Halamka JD. There Are Important Reasons For Delaying Implementation Of The New ICD-10 Coding System. Health Aff March 2012 DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1258) 

The ICD-11 Beta drafting platform is scheduled to be launched and open to the public this May for comment and interaction. It will be a work in progress – not a final Beta draft. The final Beta draft isn’t scheduled until 2014.

No announcement that the Beta platform remains on target for a May release has been issued by WHO or ICD-11 Revision Steering Group and no date is given on the ICD Revision website for the launch.

The publicly viewable version of the Alpha drafting platform (the ICD-11 Alpha Browser) can be accessed here. The various ICD-11 Revision Topic Advisory Groups work on a separate, more layered multi-author drafting platform.

NB: The Alpha drafting platform is a work in progress. It is incomplete, in a state of flux, updated daily and subject to WHO Caveats.

ICD-11 Alpha Browser User Guide here.

Foundation view here.

Linearization view here.

PDFs of Draft Print versions of the Linearization are available from the Linearization tab to logged in users.

The ICD-11 timeline (as it stands at April 8, 2012) can be found on the WHO website here.

 

ICD-10-CM

Note: ICD-10-CM is the forthcoming US specific “Clinical Modification” of the WHO’s ICD-10. Following implementation of ICD-10-CM, the US is not anticipated to move on to ICD-11, or a Clinical Modification of ICD-11, for a number of years after global transition to ICD-11.

On February 16, Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen G. Sebelius, announced HHS’s intent to initiate a process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities have to comply with ICD-10-CM diagnosis and procedure codes. (Source: CMS Public Affairs/HHS Press Release, February 16, 2012)

The final rule adopting ICD-10-CM as a standard was published in January 2009, when a compliance date of October 1, 2013 had been set – a delay of two years from the compliance date initially specified in the 2008 proposed rule.

CMS plans to announce a new ICD-10 implementation date sometime this April, according to CMS Regional Office, Boston. (Source: Healthcare News: CMS targets April for release of new ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation date, March 20, 2012)

It is anticipated that CMS will make an announcement in the Federal Register, take public comment for 60 days, consider feedback on its proposed ruling, then issue a final rule.

For developments on the new ICD-10-CM compliance date, watch the CMS site or sign up for CMS email alerts: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/Latest_News.html

 

Related information:

DSM-5 Development

ICD-11 Revision

ICD10 Watch

Federal Register

CMS Latest News

DHHS Newsroom

ICD-10-CM CDC Site

CMS expected to announce proposal for new ICD-10 implementation date sometime in April

CMS expected to announce proposal for new ICD-10 implementation date sometime in April

Post #153 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-218

In a press release on February 16, Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen G. Sebelius, announced HHS’s intent to initiate a process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities have to comply with ICD-10-CM diagnosis and procedure codes.

The final rule adopting ICD-10-CM as a standard was published in January 2009, when a compliance date of October 1, 2013 had been set – a delay of two years from the compliance date initially specified in the 2008 proposed rule.

Several sites covering CMS’s intention to delay implementation are citing April as the month in which a new timeline for ICD-10-CM is expected to be announced:

HC Pro

New ICD-10 implementation date expected in April

ICD-10 Trainer | March 21, 2012

CMS plans to announce a new ICD-10 implementation date sometime in April, according to representatives of CMS and MassHealth, a public health insurance program for low and medium-income residents in Massachusetts.

Renee Washington, director of customer system integration at MassHealth, revealed the time frame for the much anticipated announcement during the Massachusetts Health Data Consortium’s March 9 conference call. Renee Richard from the CMS Regional Office in Boston confirmed this information during the call…

HC Pro Just Coding

Healthcare News: CMS targets April for release of new ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation date

March 20, 2012

CMS expects to release a new ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation date sometime in April. That date will be the same for payers and providers. (Excerpt from a member only article.)

ICD-10 Watch (no connection with this site which was formerly known as “DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch”)

It’s about time for an ICD-10 delay announcement

Carl Natale | March 30, 2012

It looks like next week is when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) will announce their proposals for a new ICD-10 timeline.

Which should mean they will publish it in the Federal Register and take public comment for 60 days. Then they will consider the feedback and issue a final rule. Who knows when that will be…

Read full round up by Carl Natale

 

Christopher Chute, MD, (Chair, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group) et al set out the case for delaying implementation, in this paper published at Health Affairs:

Health Affairs

At the Intersection of Health, Health Care, and Policy

There Are Important Reasons For Delaying Implementation Of The New ICD-10 Coding System

Abstract: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/03/21/hlthaff.2011.1258.abstract

Full free text: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/03/21/hlthaff.2011.1258.full

PDF: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/03/21/hlthaff.2011.1258.full.pdf+html

Published online before print March 2012, doi: Health Aff March 2012 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1258

There Are Important Reasons For Delaying Implementation Of The New ICD-10 Coding System

Christopher G. Chute 1,*, Stanley M. Huff 2, James A. Ferguson 3, James M. Walker 4 and John D. Halamka 5

Author Affiliations

1 Christopher G. Chute (chute@mayo.edu) is a professor of biomedical informatics at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota.
2 Stanley M. Huff is a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Utah, in [please provide city], and chief medical informatics officer at Intermountain Healthcare, in Murray, Utah.
3 James A. Ferguson is a fellow at the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy and vice president of health information technology strategy and policy for Kaiser Permanente, in Oakland, California.
4 James M. Walker is chief health information officer of Geisinger Health System, in Danville, Pennsylvania.
5 John D. Halamka is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, chief information officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and chief information officer at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.
*Corresponding author

Abstract

Federal authorities have recently signaled that they would consider delaying some aspects of implementation of the newest version of the International Classification of Diseases, known as ICD-10-CM, a coding system used to define health care charges and diagnoses. Some industry groups have reacted with dismay, and many providers with relief. We are concerned that adopting this new classification system for reimbursement will be disruptive and costly and will offer no material improvement over the current system. Because the health care community is also working to integrate health information technology and federal meaningful-use specifications that require the adoption of other complex coding standardization systems (such as the system called SNOMED CT), we recommend that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services consider delaying the adoption of ICD-10-CM. Policy makers should also begin planning now for ways to make the coming transition to ICD-11 as tolerable as possible for the health care and payment community.

Full free text

Tom Sullivan, for Health Care IT News, asks Chute, “Why not just skip right to ICD-11?”

Why not just skip right to ICD-11?

Tom Sullivan, Government Health IT| March 13, 2012

…While industry associations battle over the code set’s future, and HHS figures out when the new compliance deadline will be, the World Health Organization (WHO) is already moving toward ICD-11, promising a beta in 2014 to be followed by the final version in 2015. Should that slip until 2016, U.S. health entities will still be settling into ICD-10 when ICD-11 arrives – meaning that shortly thereafter, we will be right back where we are now: Behind the times, on the previous ICD incarnation.

Are we repeating our own faulty history?

“That almost assuredly will be the case,” said Chris Chute, MD, DrPH, who spearheads the Mayo Clinic’s bioinformatics division and chairs the WHO’s ICD-11 Revision Steering Group…

Read full article by Tom Sullivan

Rhonda Butler argues why US health care providers and industry can’t just ditch ICD-10-CM and wait for ICD-11 in 2015/16:

3M Health Information

We Can’t Skip ICD-10 and Go Straight to ICD-11

Rhonda Butler | March 26, 2012

Since the recent announcement by CMS that ICD-10 implementation will be delayed for certain healthcare entities, some industry pundits have argued, “Let’s just skip ICD-10 and go straight to ICD-11.”

Skipping ICD-10 assumes that we haven’t started implementing ICD-10. Well, the U.S. did start—19 years ago.

What have we been doing for the last 19 years…

Read full article

Letter from Justine M. Carr, MD, Chairperson, National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics to The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, March 2, 2012

Contains ICD-10-CM timeline

    Re: Possible Delay of Deadline for Implementation of ICD-10 Code Sets

James Phillips asks Michael First (Editor of DSM-IV-TR, Consultant to WHO ICD-11 Revision) how DSM-5 relates to ICD:

Psychiatric Times

DSM-5 In the Homestretch—1. Integrating the Coding Systems

James Phillips, MD | 07 March 2012

With DSM-5 scheduled for publication a little more than a year from now, we may safely assume that, barring unannounced surprises from, say, the APA Scientific Review Committee, what we will see on the DSM-5 Web site is what we will get. With that in mind it’s time to review what we will indeed get. But before moving to significant changes in the major disorder categories, we should remind ourselves where DSM-5 fits into the larger picture of coding mental illnesses.

There are, in case you have forgotten, two classificatory systems of mental disorders—the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), produced by the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), produced by the American Psychiatric Association. How are they related? It is a question that has confused me, and I assume, some of my psychiatric colleagues as well as others—other mental health professionals, and still others. For an answer to this question I asked Michael First, MD, Editor of DSM-IV-TR, Consultant on the WHO ICD-11 revision…

Read full commentary

 

Related posts:

HHS Secretary Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date  February 16, 2012

AHIMA: Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10 (ICD-10-CM)  February 23, 2012

AHIMA: Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10 (ICD-10-CM)

AHIMA: Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10 (ICD-10-CM)

Post #147 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Xw

This material relates to the forthcoming US specific “clinical modification” of the WHO ICD-10, known as “ICD-10-CM.” It does not relate to other country specific clinical modifications of ICD-10.

Update @ February 27: There has been considerable coverage of HHS’s announcement to delay the compliance date for ICD-10-CM.

Further coverage:

Press release

HCPro

Industry Experts Respond to Announcement of ICD-10 Deadline Delay

February 27, 2012

Industry experts respond as HHS has confirmed its intent to delay the ICD-10 compliance deadline, according to its latest press release. HCPro contacted numerous industry experts for their thoughts on the recent announcement by CMS. Although reactions are mixed, experts agree that forward progress on ICD-10 readiness for providers is essential…

ICD-10 may not be postponed for everyone

Ken Kerry | February 20, 2012

One school of thought is that it will be delayed for a year or two; but CMS’ announcement mentioned that only “certain healthcare entities” would be granted a reprieve. Which entities? We don’t know yet.

---

On January 16, 2009, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a Final Rule in the Federal Register mandating adoption of ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS to replace ICD-9-CM in HIPAA transactions, with a compliance date of October 1, 2013.

Until implementation, codes in ICD-10-CM are not valid for any purpose or use. ICD-10-CM has been subject to partial code freeze since October 1, 2011.

The 2012 release of ICD-10-CM is now available from the CDC site and replaces the December 2011 release:

International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM)

 

HHS announces delay for compliance

On February 16, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a press release announcing that HHS will initiate a process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities are required to comply with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “We have heard from many in the provider community who have concerns about the administrative burdens they face in the years ahead.  We are committing to work with the provider community to reexamine the pace at which HHS and the nation implement these important improvements to our health care system.”

HHS has yet to announce a new compliance date but it is speculated that the delay would be for at least one year, rather than for a few months.

Related content:

Post #142 | February 16, 2012

HHS Secretary Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date

For background see: 

Could the U.S skip ICD-10 and leapfrog directly to ICD-11?

February 16, 2012 | Tom Sullivan, Government Health IT

HIMSS statement, February 17, 2012

HIMSS Calls for Maintaining October 1, 2013 ICD-10 Implementation Deadline for Most Healthcare Entities

Information Week report

ICD-10 Delay Worries Health IT Leaders

The train’s already left the station for organizations that have been prepping for an October 2013 ICD-10 deadline, say health IT organizations and CIOs.

Nicole Lewis | InformationWeek |February 22, 2012

Practice Fusion

HHS Asks for a Delay to the Start of ICD-10

Robert Rowley, MD | February 21, 2012

AHIMA issues statement and press release

Yesterday, American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) issued a statement and press release in response to HHS Sebelius’ February 16 announcement to delay the ICD-10-CM compliance date.

AHIMA represents more than 64,000 Health Information Management professionals in the United States and around the world. www.ahima.org

American Health Information Management Association statement and press release

http://journal.ahima.org/2012/02/22/ten-reasons-to-not-delay-icd-10/

     AHIMA statement IDC-10 Delay 02.17.12

Ten Reasons to Not Delay ICD-10

Feb 22, 2012 01:12 pm | posted by Kevin Heubusch | ICD-10

This week AHIMA announced it will reach out to leaders at the Department of Health and Human Services and urge there be no delay in the implementation of ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS.

“We recommend that HHS reach out to the full healthcare community and gather more information about the great strides many have achieved— in good faith—since the ICD-10 deadline was set in January 2009,” said AHIMA CEO Lynne Thomas Gordon, quoted in a statement.

Further, AHIMA encouraged the healthcare community to continue its implementation planning and not let up its efforts.

In a statement released today, AHIMA offered 10 reasons not to delay ICD-10 implementation.

Ten Reasons We Need ICD-10 Now

1. It Enhances Quality Measures. Without ICD-10 data, serious gaps will remain in the healthcare community’s ability to extract important patient health information needed for physicians and others to measure quality care.
2. Research Capabilities Will Improve Patient Care. Data could be used in a more meaningful way to enable better understanding of complications, better design of clinically robust algorithms, and better tracking of the outcomes of care. Greater detail offers the ability to discover previously-unrecognized relationships or uncover phenomenon such as incipient epidemics early.
3. Significant Progress Has Already Been Made. For several years, hospitals and healthcare systems, health plans, vendors and academic institutions have been preparing in good faith to put systems in place to transition to ICD-10. A delay would cause an unnecessary setback.
4. Education Programs Are Underway. To ready the next generation of HIM professionals, academic institutions have set their curriculum for two-year, four-year, and graduate programs to include ICD-10.
5. Other Healthcare Initiatives Need ICD-10. ICD-10 is the foundation needed to support other national healthcare initiatives such as meaningful use, value-based purchasing, payment reform, quality reporting and accountable care organizations. Electronic health record systems being adopted today are ICD-10 compatible. Without ICD-10, the value of these other efforts is greatly diminished.
6. It Reduces Fraud. With ICD-10, the detail of health procedures will be easier to track, reducing opportunities for unscrupulous practitioners to cheat the system.
7. It Promotes Cost Effectiveness. More accurate information will reduce waste, lead to more accurate reimbursement and help ensure that healthcare dollars are used efficiently.

If ICD-10 Is Delayed:

1. Resources Will Be Lost. For the last three years, the healthcare community has invested millions of dollars analyzing their systems, aligning resources and training staff for the ICD-10 transition.
2. Costs Will Increase. A delay will cause increased implementation costs, as many healthcare providers and health plans will need to maintain two systems (ICD-9 and ICD-10). Delaying ICD-10 increases the cost of keeping personnel trained and prepared for the transition. Other systems, business processes, and operational elements also will need upgrading. More resources will be needed to repeat some implementation activities if ICD-10 is delayed.
3. Jobs Will Be Lost.To prepare for the transition, many hospitals and healthcare providers have hired additional staff whose jobs will be affected if ICD-10 is delayed.

And Finally…

We Can’t Wait for ICD-11. The foundations of ICD-11 rest on ICD-10 and the foundation must be laid before a solid structure can be built. ICD-11 will require the development and integration of a new clinical modification system. Even under ideal circumstances, ICD-11 is still several years away from being ready for implementation in the United States.*

In the report by Tom Sullivan (Health Care Finance News, February 16, 2012), Christopher Chute, MD, who chairs the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group, warned of a possible further delay for completion of ICD-11, from 2015 to 2016.

Implementation of ICD-11 has already been shifted from 2012 to 2014, then last year, to 2015+. These are projections for pilot, then global implementation for ICD-11.

The DHHS Office of the Secretary Final Rule document, February 2009, stated:

“We estimated that the earliest projected date to begin rulemaking for implementation of a U.S. clinical modification of ICD–11 would be the year 2020.”

Canada uses a clinical modification of ICD-10 called ICD-10-CA. WHO-FIC meeting materials suggest that Canada might not move onto ICD-11 (or a modification of ICD-11) until 2018+.  Australia, which uses a clinical modification of ICD-10 called ICD-10-AM, is discussing potentially earlier adoption of ICD-11.

HHS Secretary Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date

HHS Secretary Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date

Post #142 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Ux

Coverage today of the announcement by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen G. Sebelius of intent to delay ICD-10-CM compliance date.

Will American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees take this opportunity to delay its DSM-5 timeline, take a breathing space, and reconsider its controversial proposals for DSM-5, or submit them to independent scientific scrutiny?

Link to report at end of post also quotes Chris Chute, Chair, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group, on possible delay for completion of ICD-11 from 2015 to 2016 – no surprise that ICD Revision may be considering another shift of timeline given the technical ambitiousness of the revision project, the lack of resources and slipping targets for the Alpha and Beta drafts.

Tom Sullivan reports:

Should the U.S. delay the ICD-10 compliance deadline just one year, until 2014, then the WHO will have a beta of ICD-11 ready. And if Sisko’s gut is correct, and the new ICD-10 deadline flows into 2015, well, then a final version of ICD-11 will be fast-approaching.

When it arrives, currently slated for 2015 (but Chute said it could be 2016), the underlying structure of ICD-11 will be profoundly different than any anterior ICD.

“ICD-11 will be significantly more sophisticated, both from a computer science perspective and from a medical content and description perspective,” Chute explains. “Each rubric in ICD-11 will have a fairly rich information space and metadata around it. It will have an English language definition, it will have logical linkages with attributes to SNOMED, it will have applicable genomic information and underpinnings linked to HUGO, human genome standard representations.”

ICD-10, as a point of contrast, provides a title, a string, a number, inclusion terms and an index. No definitions. No linkages because it was created before the Internet, let alone the semantic web. No rich information space.”

 

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announces intent to delay ICD-10 compliance date

February 16, 2012 | Carl Natale, Editor, ICD10Watch

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen G. Sebelius confirmed Wednesday that they will change the ICD-10 timeline.

A HHS press release stated they “will initiate the rulemaking process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities have to comply with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes (ICD-10).”

On Tuesday, Marilyn Tavenner, the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said the agency will examine the ICD-10-CM/PCS timeline. Tavenner made the statement at a conference of the American Medical Association (AMA) National Advocacy Conference. The AMA has declared vigorous opposition to the medical coding system citing the cost, complexity and lack of perceived benefit to patients… Read on

 

CMS Public Affairs Press Release:

http://www.dhhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/02/20120216a.html

News Release
Contact: CMS Public Affairs
(202) 690-6145

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 16, 2012

HHS announces intent to delay ICD-10 compliance date

As part of President Obama’s commitment to reducing regulatory burden, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen G. Sebelius today announced that HHS will initiate a process to postpone the date by which certain health care entities have to comply with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes (ICD-10).

The final rule adopting ICD-10 as a standard was published in January 2009 and set a compliance date of October 1, 2013 – a delay of two years from the compliance date initially specified in the 2008 proposed rule. HHS will announce a new compliance date moving forward.

“ICD-10 codes are important to many positive improvements in our health care system,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “We have heard from many in the provider community who have concerns about the administrative burdens they face in the years ahead. We are committing to work with the provider community to reexamine the pace at which HHS and the nation implement these important improvements to our health care system.”

ICD-10 codes provide more robust and specific data that will help improve patient care and enable the exchange of our health care data with that of the rest of the world that has long been using ICD-10. Entities covered under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) will be required to use the ICD-10 diagnostic and procedure codes.

Report:

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/could-us-skip-icd-10-and-leapfrog-directly-icd-11

Could the U.S skip ICD-10 and leapfrog directly to ICD-11?

February 16, 2012 | Tom Sullivan, Government Health IT

Practice Central on ICD-10-CM transition; APA Monitor and WHO Reed on ICD-11

Two articles on forthcoming classification systems: the first on ICD-10-CM from Practice Central; the second on ICD-11 from the February 2012 edition of the American Psychological Association’s “Monitor on Psychology”

Post #140 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Tt

Update: Medicare could delay burdensome rules on doctors | Julian Pecquet, for The Hill, February 14, 2012

“The acting head of the Medicare agency said Tuesday that she is considering giving the nation’s doctors more time to switch to a new insurance coding system that critics say would cost millions of dollars for little gain to patients.

“Marilyn Tavenner, the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told a conference of the American Medical Association (AMA) that her agency could delay adoption of the so-called ICD-10 system. Current law calls for physicians to adopt the new codes next year…

“…Speaking to reporters after her prepared remarks, Tavenner said her office would formally announce its intention to craft new regulations “within the next few days.”

ICD-10 Deadline Review Update | Andrea Kraynak, for HealthLeaders Media, February 15, 2012

“Big news regarding the ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation timeline came Tuesday morning during the American Medical Association (AMA) National Advocacy Conference in Washington, DC.”

“Per CMS acting administrator Marilyn Tavenner, CMS plans to revisit the current implementation deadline of October 1, 2013. Tavenner said CMS wants to reexamine the pace of implementing ICD-10 and reduce physicians’ administrative burden, according to an AMA tweet…”

Practice Central: Resources for Practicing Psychologists

Practice Central, a service of the APA Practice Organization (APAPO), supports practicing psychologists in all settings and at all stages of their career. APAPO is a companion organization to the American Psychological Association. Our mission is to advance and protect your ability to practice psychology.

http://www.apapracticecentral.org/update/2012/02-09/transition.aspx

Practice Update | February 2012

Transition to the ICD-10-CM: What does it mean for psychologists?

Psychologists should be aware of and prepare for the mandatory shift to ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes in October 2013

By Practice Research and Policy staff

February 9, 2012—Beginning October 1, 2013 all entities, including health care providers, covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) must convert to using the ICD-10-CM diagnosis code sets. The mandate represents a fundamental shift for many psychologists and other mental health professionals who are far more attuned to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Most psychologists were trained using some version of DSM. For other health care providers, the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) – which contains a chapter on mental disorders – is the classification standard.

Over the years, efforts to harmonize these two classifications have resulted in systems with similar (often identical) codes and diagnostic names. In fact, even if psychologists record DSM diagnostic codes for billing purposes, payers recognize the codes as ICD-9-CM – the official version of ICD currently used in the United States. Since 2003, the ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes have been mandated for third-party billing and reporting by HIPAA for all…

Read full article here

 

Dr Geoffrey M. Reed, PhD, Senior Project Officer, WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, is seconded to WHO through IUPsyS (International Union for Psychological Science). Dr Reed co-ordinates the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders.

Meetings of the International Advisory Group are chaired by Steven Hyman, MD, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, a former Director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and DSM-5 Task Force Member.

The Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse will also be managing the technical part of the revision of Diseases of the Nervous System (currently Chapter VI), as it is doing for Chapter V.

February 2012 edition of the American Psychological Association’s “Monitor on Psychology”:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/02/disorder-classification.aspx

Feature

Improving disorder classification, worldwide

With the help of psychologists, the next version of the International Classification of Diseases will have a more behavioral perspective.

By Rebecca A. Clay

February 2012, Vol 43, No. 2

Print version: page 40

What’s the world’s most widely used classification system for mental disorders? If you guessed the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), you would be wrong.

According to a study of nearly 5,000 psychiatrists in 44 countries sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Psychiatric Association, more than 70 percent of the world’s psychiatrists use WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD) most in day-to-day practice while just 23 percent turn to the DSM. The same pattern is found among psychologists globally, according to preliminary results from a similar survey of international psychologists conducted by WHO and the International Union of Psychological Science.

“The ICD is the global standard for health information,” says psychologist Geoffrey M. Reed, PhD, senior project officer in WHO’s Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. “It’s developed as a tool for the public good; it’s not the property of a particular profession or particular professional organization.”

Now WHO is revising the ICD, with the ICD-11 due to be approved in 2015. With unprecedented input from psychologists, the revised version’s section on mental and behavioral disorders is expected to be more psychologist-friendly than ever—something that’s especially welcome given concerns being raised about the DSM’s own ongoing revision process. (See “Protesting proposed changes to the DSM” .) And coming changes in the United States will mean that psychologists will soon need to get as familiar with the ICD as their colleagues around the world…

Read full article here

For more information about the ICD revision, visit the World Health Organization.

Rebecca A. Clay is a writer in Washington, D.C

CFSAC November 8-9, 2011 meeting: Minutes and Recommendations to HHS posted

CFSAC November 8-9, 2011 meeting: Minutes and Recommendations to HHS posted

Shortlink Post #129: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Fn

The fall meeting of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) took place on November 8-9, 2011.

Minutes and Committee’s Recommendations to HHS have now been posted on the CFSAC website.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) 

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 on issues related to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). These include:

• factors affecting access and care for persons with CFS;
• the science and definition of CFS; and
• broader public health, clinical, research and educational issues related to CFS.

Administrative and management support for CFSAC activities is provided by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH). However, staffing will continue to be provided primarily from the Office on Women’s Health, which is part of OASH.

Dr. Nancy C. Lee, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health – Women’s Health, is the Designated Federal Officer for CFSAC.

The Meetings page is here

               Minutes Day One CFSAC Fall 2011 meeting

               Minutes Day Two CFSAC Fall 2011 meeting

Presentations, Public Testimony and links for Videos for Day One and Day Two

 

The Agenda item with the most relevance for this site was the issue of the current proposals for chapter placement and coding for Chronic fatigue syndrome in the forthcoming US specific ICD-10-CM, the proposals presented for consideration at the September meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee on behalf of the Coalition for ME/CFS, and an alternative proposal presented by NCHS.

See this Dx Revision Watch post (Post #118, December 27, 2011) for a report on the Fall 2012 Meeting presentation by Donna Pickett (NCHS) and discussions of proposals for ICD-10-CM:

CFSAC November 2011 meeting: videos, presentations and Day One Agenda item:

International Classification of Diseases – Clinical Modification (ICD-CM): Presentation by Donna Pickett, RHIA, MPH, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

 

Recommendations out of the Fall 2011 CFSAC Meeting

CFSAC Recommendations – November 8-9, 2011

The specific recommendations articulated by the Committee are:

1. This recommendation addresses the process by which CFSAC transmits recommendations to the Secretary and the Secretary communicates back to CFSAC whether or not a recommendation was acted upon. CFSAC recommends that this process be transparent and clearly articulated to include regular feedback on the status of the committee’s  recommendations. This communication could originate directly from the Office of the Secretary or be transmitted via the relevant agency or agencies.

2. CFSAC recommends to the Secretary that the NIH or other appropriate agency issue a Request for Applications (RFA) for clinical trials research on chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).

3. CFSAC would like to encourage and support the creation of the DHHS Interagency Working Group on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and ask this group to work together to pool resources that would put into place the “Centers of Excellence” concept that has been recommended repeatedly by this advisory committee. Specifically, CFSAC encourages utilizing HHS agency programs and demonstration projects, available through the various agencies, to develop and coordinate an effort supporting innovative platforms that facilitate evaluation and treatment, research, and public and provider education. These could take the form of appropriately staffed physical locations, or be virtual networks comprising groups of qualified individuals who interact through a variety of electronic media. Outreach and availability to underserved populations, including people who do not have access to expert care, should be a priority in this effort.

4. This multi‐part recommendation pertains to classification of CFS in ICD classification systems:

a) CFSAC considers CFS to be a multi‐system disease and rejects any proposal to classify CFS as a psychiatric condition in the U.S. disease classification systems.

b) CFSAC rejects the current classification of CFS in Chapter 18 of ICD‐9‐CM under R53.82, chronic fatigue unspecified, chronic fatigue syndrome, not otherwise specified.

c) 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, the World Health Organization, and ICD‐10‐CA, the Canadian Clinical Modification and in accordance with CFSAC’s recommendations of August 2005 and May 2011. CFSAC rejects CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics Option 2 and recommends that CFS remain in the same code and the same subcode as myalgic encephalomyelitis because CFS includes both viral and non‐viral triggers.

d) CFSAC recommends that an “excludes one” [sic *] be added to G93.3 for chronic fatigue, R53.82, and neurasthenia, F48.8. CFSAC recommends that these changes be made in ICD‐10‐CM prior to its rollout in 2013.

This final recommendation was also provided to the National Center for Statistics at the CDC prior to the November 18, 2011 deadline for comments along with the following rationale:

We feel that the interests of patients, the scientific and medical communities, continuity and logic are best served by keeping CFS, (B)ME (Benign Myalgic Encephalomyelitis) and PVFS (Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome) in the same broad grouping category. Current scientific evidence would indicate there are more similarities between the three entities than there are differences. Whether they are synonyms for the same underlying concept, disease entities and sub‐entities, or merely the best coding guess is unclear. In reality, any or all of the above may be correct. While the  relationship between CFS, B(ME) and PVFS is not stated, that they are grouped together in ICD 10 (WHO) would indicate some rationale for a connection. Our understanding is that this association will be maintained in the ICD 11, which may also include further description of the relationship. Exclusions specific to chronic fatigue (a symptom present in many illnesses) and neurasthenia (not a current diagnosis) also seem to be under consideration for ICD 11.

*Ed: Should be “Excludes1″. For definitions for “Excludes1″ and “Excludes2″ see Post #118

               November 2011 Recommendations Letter to the Secretary (PDF 31 KB)

               November 2011 CFSAC Recommendations Chart (PDF 138 KB)

The Minute for Ms Pickett’s presentation “International Classification of Diseases—Clinical Modification (ICD‐CM) Donna Pickett, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)” and Committee discussions in response to that presentation can be found on Pages 4-10 of the PDF for Minutes Day One (November 8, 2011).

Video of presentation in Post #118. Ms Pickett’s presentation slides here in PDF format.

The Minute for the proposal and unanimous approval of a revised and expanded Recommendation to HHS on the coding of CFS in ICD-10-CM can be found on Pages 43-44 of the PDF for Minutes Day Two (November 9, 2011). Video in Post #118.

As reported in Post #118, following the September 14 meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee, NCHS had invited comments from stakeholders on the proposals in Option 1 (presented by the Coalition for ME/CFS) and Option 2 (alternative proposals by NCHS).

The closing date for comments was November 18, 2011.

A decision was expected before the end of December but since any decision that might have been reached on these proposals has yet to be announced, I have raised some queries with Ms Pickett around the decision making process (see Post #118). I will update when a response has been received from Ms Pickett’s office or a public announcement made.

 

Related post

CFSAC November 2011 meeting: videos, presentations and Day One Agenda item: 

International Classification of Diseases – Clinical Modification (ICD-CM): Presentation by Donna Pickett, RHIA, MPH, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), November 27, 2011

DSM 5 Censorship Fails: Support From Professionals and Patients Saves Free Speech: Allen Frances

DSM 5 Censorship Fails: Support From Professionals and Patients Saves Free Speech by Allen Frances

Post #127 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1ER

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress
The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.
by Allen Frances, M.D. (Chair, DSM-IV Task Force and currently professor emeritus at Duke.)

DSM 5 Censorship Fails
Support From Professionals and Patients Saves Free Speech

Allen Frances, M.D. | January 12, 2012

Last week I described the plight of Suzy Chapman, a well respected UK patient advocate forced to change the domain name of her website by the heavy handed tactics of the publishing arm of the American Psychiatric Association. The spurious legal excuse was commercial protection of the ‘DSM 5′ trademark; the probable intent was to stifle one of the internet’s best sources of DSM and ICD information. This bullying could not have come at a worse time – just as final decisions are being made on highly controversial DSM 5 proposals and with the third and final draft due for release this spring. This is precisely when a ragged and reckless DSM 5 can most benefit from the widest and most open discussion.

Though APA’s trademark claims were patently absurd, Ms Chapman did not have the necessary resources for a protracted fight against a well staffed legal department. Visits plummeted drastically to her new web address (reaching a nadir of just one hit per day) and the site faced months of slow recovery. But the good news is that APA’s clumsy attempt at censorship has backfired, free speech will prevail, and the site is now more popular than ever.

Suzy Chapman writes:

“I want to thank the many psychiatrists, allied mental health professionals, and science writers who have spoken out in opposition to what they see as arrogant censorship on the part of the American Psychiatric Association. Their outpouring of concern has generated considerable interest on websites, blogs and social media platforms. This has increased the traffic on my site by many hundreds of visitors per day. The support of professionals and patient groups illustrates the power of the internet to resist suppression of patient advocacy and to promote free speech.”

“The purpose of my site is to raise public and stakeholder awareness of the forthcoming revisions of both DSM-5 and ICD-11. I endeavor to provide timely and accurate information about DSM-5, including: internet commentaries on proposals; flag ups of journal papers and editorials; news releases and other media statements; and updates on changes to the DSM-5 timeline. I also cover progress on ICD-11, including activities of the Revision Steering Group; documents, presentations and videos; and updates on the ICD-11 timeline. I report on developments with the forthcoming US ICD-10-CM and proceedings of a US federal Advisory Committee to HHS in relation to coding issues. Finally, I follow the advocacy campaigns and initiatives relating to DSM and ICD classificatory issues. My objective is to help stakeholders understand the issues so that they may provide the most useful feedback to the revision process.”

“Despite all the controversies, despite the calls for independent review, despite all the delays and limitations of its field trials, DSM-5 hurtles forward towards publication in May 2013. During this final, decisive year of DSM 5 decision making, I shall continue to publish information, updates and commentaries to promote the widest possible dialogue around the drafting of this most important publication. My new site, ‘Dx Revision Watch – Monitoring the development of DSM-5, ICD-11, ICD-10-CM’ can be found at: http://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com/

“This experience has taught me that the APA trademark claims were not only misguided, but probably legally indefensible. ‘Nominative fair use’ is permitted those who are publishing criticism within texts if use of the trademark is relevant to the subject of discussion or necessary to identify the product, service, or company. Courts have found that non-misleading use of trademarks in the domain names of critical websites (like walmartsucks.com) is to be considered ‘fair use’ by non-commercial users – so long as there is no intent to misrepresent or confuse visitors to the site and when it is clear that the site owner is not claiming endorsement by, or affiliation to, the holder of the mark.”

“Everything I have read suggests that my clearly non-commercial use of my previous subdomain name (dsm5watch.wordpress.com) – with its prominent disclaimer and no intent to mislead – falls well within the concept of ‘fair use’. This then raises the obvious question – what grounds did APA have for serving me with demands and threats of possible legal action? Several people have independently sent me materials on ‘SLAPP’ lawsuits (strategic lawsuit against public participation). These are threats of legal action intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense – so that they will abandon their criticism or opposition.”

“If you are interested in learning more about ‘SLAPP’ lawsuits, there is a good summary at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

“The Electronic Frontier Foundation is also a very useful resource for legal advice on trademark law for blog and website owners. See http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/IP

“The surprisingly spirited and unanimous internet reaction provoked by the APA’s actions will probably discourage it from future pursuit of other ‘fair use’ site owners. I certainly hope so. But if other site owners are issued inappropriate ‘cease and desist’ claims, I do hope they have the resources to seek legal advice before complying.”

“I am very grateful for all the support received in the past week and the many emails thanking me for the work I do. It is gratifying to hear that not only do patients, caregivers and patient organizations rely on my carefully researched and presented content, but that so many professionals are also following my site and find it useful. This experience has been stressful, but I can now say confidently that APA’s actions have definitely backfired –  the many hundreds of additional viewers discovering the site each day will expand its audience and its usefulness.”

All of us owe great thanks to Ms Chapman and to the internet community whose ringing endorsement has allowed her not only to maintain, but also to enlarge, her readership. Ms Chapman will continue to provide the field with the most current and most accurate reporting on DSM 5 during its endgame. I strongly recommend her website as the best clearinghouse for information on DSM 5.

I join Ms Chapman in hoping that this embarrassing episode will discourage APA from all future efforts at abusive censorship – whether they are related to trademark, copyright, or confidentiality agreements. The field must remain vigilant in its efforts to contain APA commercialism and persistent in trying to penetrate APA’s secrecy and inbred decision making. APA must finally come to realize that DSM 5 is an open public trust, not a private business enterprise.

---

 

Related material:

DSM 5 A Public Trust Or An APA Cash Cow? Commercialism And Censorship Trump Concern For Quality, Allen Frances, M.D., Psychology Today, January 03, 2012

Further media coverage of the APA cease and desist v DSM-5 Watch website issue collated here:  Post #123

Article on “cease and desist” issue: Pity the poor American Psychiatric Association, Parts 1 and 2 by Gary Greenberg

 

Legal information and resources for bloggers and site owners:

1] Wipedia article: Cease and desist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desist

2] Wipedia article: Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

3] Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation
http://www.eff.org/

EFF Bloggers’ Rights
https://www.eff.org/bloggers

EFF Legal Guide for Bloggers
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal

4] Chilling Effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_Effects_(group)

http://chillingeffects.org/

Chilling Effects FAQ on Trademark Law
http://www.chillingeffects.org/trademark/faq.cgi#QID251

Chilling Effects on Protest, Parody and Criticism Sites
http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/

5] U.S. Trademark Law, Rules of Practice & Federal Statutes , U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, November 2011 http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/tmlaw.pdf