A new DSM disorder?

[reneeh63]

Originally Posted by anononcty

I do and don't believe it. Just because the industry decides to label it doesn't mean it's as bad or common as they say. On the other hand I know people almost 10 years after a relative passing they can go into tears if their name is mentioned or they are talked about more than a mention. But this person is also a certified hoarder(place condemned and had to be evaluated) so that person might have this or it's another symptom associated with their hoarding.

Why would going into tears be "disruptive" to their life - it would not fit the DSM criteria as a disorder. Now, if they went into hysterics and needed to be sedated after 6 hours...different situation.

Not sure how hoarding plays into it unless you're saying they are "hoarding" the dead relative's items....? Unless it negatively impacts their life (house is condemned...fire hazard...whatever) then simply "hoarding" is not a "disorder". It goes beyond the layperson's casual definition.

These disorders are not merely given a NAME - there are criteria that need to be met. Google DSM-V and read a little.

[ocnjgirl]

Originally Posted by anononcty

I do and don't believe it. Just because the industry decides to label it doesn't mean it's as bad or common as they say. On the other hand I know people almost 10 years after a relative passing they can go into tears if their name is mentioned or they are talked about more than a mention. But this person is also a certified hoarder(place condemned and had to be evaluated) so that person might have this or it's another symptom associated with their hoarding.

Yes, we had a patient in the rehab (physical) I work in that had that problem. She was still despondent over losing her mother and it had been years. She would still cry about it. She was morbidly obese and had some mental health issues, and I think her mom made her feel safe and loved in a world that probably largely did not.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by reneeh63

Obviously the ICD-10 is a different diagnostic tool than the DSM so it's not exactly redundant in that way to add something to the DSM.

DSM codes have corresponding ICD codes.

[reneeh63]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

DSM codes have corresponding ICD codes.

Here's some additional info:
https://kasa-solutions.com/diagnosti...m-5-vs-icd-10/


Why Are There Two Code Sets?
It may appear that the DSM-5 is redundant and unnecessary in light of the ICD-10 CM coding system. However, the DSM-5 gives mental health professionals criteria and definitions to classify diseases through a common language, while ICD-10 assigns a code that is used for reimbursement in claims processing. It is also important to note that the DSM-5 is strictly intended for mental disorders. While ICD-10 includes those same conditions, it contains conditions and diseases related to the entire human physiology, and does not cover mental disorders in the same depth as the DSM-5 does. This represents one of the most important differences between ICD-10 and DSM-5.

Since the DSM-5 and ICD-10 are separate lists and are maintained by separate entities, there are at times disconnects between the two sets; not all diagnoses that appears in the DSM-5 have a direct correlation in the US version of ICD-10 (e.g. dementia, which is noted in DSM-5 as a neurocognitive disorder, which is not how ICD-10 characterizes dementia). However, in most cases, the nomenclature is quite similar. The important practical difference between the sets is that while therapists will use the DSM-5 codes for diagnostic and treatment purposes, ICD-10 codes are used for reimbursement: DSM-5 codes are not strictly reimbursable by insurance payers, therapists must submit ICD-10 codes on insurance claims or their claims will be rejected.

[rrah]

It's been interesting reading the comments here. When I initially posted I had not thought about the need for a "diagnosis" in order for insurance companies to pay for something whether it's medication or therapy.

It feels a bit wrong to me, but at the same time I understand the difference between not being able to function and "normal." I also, of course, want people to get the help they need. I think part of my concern is that often when something becomes a diagnosis it ends up being over-diagnosed. Being over-diagnosed minimizes the legitimate needs of those with a true problem.