Yes, but the ICD isn’t for health insurance, it is for international standardisation of mortality and morbidity statistics, so they can be compared between countries. That’s its purpose and the reason for its existence
The fact that the US chooses to use it for something which was not its originally intended purpose is the fault of the US, not the fault of the ICD. The WHO doesn’t force the US health insurance system to use it, the US could invent its own totally unrelated coding system for that purpose and the WHO wouldn’t care (so long as those codes can be converted to ICD codes for statistical analysis)
Most of the complaints in these comments have been about diagnosis codes (ICD-10-CM) not procedure codes (ICD-10-PCS).
Both ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS are produced by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). But ICD-10-CM is just a national version of WHO ICD-10, and as such entirely comparable to other national versions such as Australia's ICD-10-AM or Germany's ICD-10-GM. Whereas, ICD-10-PCS, despite its name, doesn't really have anything to do with WHO ICD at all, it is a purely American invention. Other countries have their own equivalents to ICD-10-PCS–for example, the Australian equivalent is ACHI (Australian Classification of Health Interventions), but unlike the US, Australia doesn't mislead people into thinking that our national procedure coding system is part of WHO ICD
The fact that the US chooses to use it for something which was not its originally intended purpose is the fault of the US, not the fault of the ICD. The WHO doesn’t force the US health insurance system to use it, the US could invent its own totally unrelated coding system for that purpose and the WHO wouldn’t care (so long as those codes can be converted to ICD codes for statistical analysis)