Application exercises on medical coding: HIPAA and HL7
Seven separate exercises across two chapters, almost all of which require reporting what is on a live site right now — and one comparison grid whose whole point is that clinical vocabularies and billing code sets are different worlds.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 8, 2026
What do these seven coding exercises actually require?
This is seven separate exercises across two chapters, not one paper, and the first planning decision is to stop looking for a connecting theme. Chapter 15 covers transaction standards, HL7 Version 3, federal regulations and a team use-case exercise; Chapter 16 covers ONC vocabulary standards, the UMLS Metathesaurus and value sets in PHIN VADS. Answer each under its own numbered heading and keep them separate. The one thing they share is that **almost every exercise requires you to go to a live website and report what is actually there right now** — an active DSMO change request, a current regulation, a specific value set. Answers written from textbook memory are visibly not answers to these questions. Numbering your answers by chapter and exercise, exactly as the brief numbers them, also makes coverage checkable at a glance.
Because the deliverables are live-site findings, record the retrieval details as you go: which change request you opened, its identifier, the date you accessed it, and what it said. These sites change, and a marker checking your work months later needs to be able to see what you saw. This matters most for the DSMO exercise, which asks you to determine *which HIPAA transaction standard is affected* and *which DSMO has expressed interest* — two specific facts about one specific request, not a general account of what a DSMO is. The same applies to the federal regulations exercise, where the deliverable is a report on **recent changes**, so the date of your search is part of the answer. A short retrieval line under each heading — site, identifier, date accessed — costs a sentence and settles any later question about what you found.
The HL7 Version 3 exercise has a technical core worth getting right. The Reference Information Model is the abstract, object-oriented information model from which V3 message structures are derived — it is the shared foundation that makes messages semantically consistent, not a message format itself. Vocabulary requirements are the other half: V3 constrains fields to coded value sets so that the same concept is expressed the same way across systems, which is precisely the problem the model exists to solve. Be aware too that V3 has largely been superseded in practice by FHIR, which is now the API-focused standard ONC's certification programme is built around — noting that shows currency. Saying explicitly that V3 has been overtaken by FHIR also answers the unasked question of why this standard is being studied at all.
The comparison grid in Chapter 16 is the exercise with the most content and the clearest structure, so give it room. You are asked to compare the vocabularies ONC adopted for certification against the terminologies required for administrative transactions under HIPAA — and the point of the comparison is that these are two different worlds. Clinical vocabularies such as SNOMED CT, LOINC and RxNorm carry clinical meaning for care and interoperability; administrative code sets such as ICD-10-CM, CPT and HCPCS exist to support billing and claims transactions. The UMLS Metathesaurus is where they meet, since it brings terms and codes from CPT, ICD-10-CM, LOINC, MeSH, RxNorm and SNOMED CT together with the relationships between them. Build the grid before writing any prose about it, because the columns you choose are the analysis and the text is only commentary.
Two practical notes. The team exercise asks how a task is performed today, how data exchange standards make it more efficient, which information systems are involved, what existing standards could solve it, and whether anyone is already working on the problem — five distinct parts, and the last one requires an actual search rather than an assumption that nobody is. The extra credit, submitting a proposal to a standards or profiling body, is genuinely optional and should not be attempted at the expense of the seven required exercises. Finally, several links in the brief carry duplicated *(Links to an external site.)* text from the learning management system; that is scrape furniture, and the URLs themselves are what matters. Treat the extra credit as genuinely extra and only attempt it once the seven required exercises are complete.
Exercise | The specific deliverable | The answer that fails |
|---|---|---|
DSMO change request | Which transaction standard, which DSMO — for one live request | A general description of the DSMO process |
HL7 V3 | Report on the Reference Information Model and vocabulary requirements | A history of HL7 versions |
Federal regulations | Recent changes to 42 CFR 170 or HIPAA transactions and code sets | The regulation summarised, with no changes |
Team use case | Task today, standards, systems, prior work — five parts | A proposal with no check on existing work |
ONC vocabularies vs HIPAA code sets | A table or grid comparing the two | Prose listing both sets |
PHIN VADS value sets | The specific value sets located | A description of what a value set is |
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Retrieve and report current information from live standards and regulatory sites.
- 02Distinguish an abstract information model from the message formats derived from it.
- 03Separate clinical terminologies from administrative code sets and explain why both exist.
- 04Document retrieval details so live-site findings remain verifiable.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
The deliverable for each exercise
- 01An identified DSMO change request, with the affected transaction standard and interested DSMO.
- 02A brief report on the HL7 V3 reference information model and vocabulary requirements.
- 03A brief report on recent changes to 42 CFR 170 or to HIPAA transactions and code sets.
- 04A team use case covering current practice, standards, systems and prior work.
- 05The ONC-adopted vocabulary standards for certification.
- 06A table or grid comparing ONC vocabularies with HIPAA administrative terminologies.
- 07The PHIN VADS value sets associated with NHSN healthcare-associated infection.
Working through Chapter 15 and Chapter 16
Chapter 15, Exercise 1 — a DSMO change request
Report one active request: the transaction standard affected and the DSMO interested.
Chapter 15, Exercise 2 — HL7 Version 3
Explain the Reference Information Model and the vocabulary requirements built on it.
Chapter 15, Exercise 3 — federal regulations
Report recent changes to the chosen regulation.
Chapter 15, Exercise 4 — the team use case
Cover current practice, efficiency gain, systems, candidate standards and existing work.
Chapter 16 — vocabularies, the comparison grid and value sets
Identify ONC vocabularies, build the comparison table, and locate the named value sets.
Recording live-site findings so they stay verifiable
Recommended databases
- ONC Interoperability Standards Platform
- NLM UMLS resources
- HL7 standards pages
- PHIN VADS and CDC NHSN
Search sequence
- 1.Do the live-site exercises first and in one sitting, recording identifiers and access dates as you go, because these are the deliverables that cannot be reconstructed later.
- 2.Check the current ONC certification standards rather than a textbook list, since the adopted vocabulary standards and their versions are updated through an annual advancement process.
- 3.Look up each vocabulary's purpose before building the grid, so the comparison has columns that mean something — clinical meaning versus administrative claims — rather than two lists side by side.
- 4.For the team exercise's final part, search standards development organisation work items and published implementation guides before concluding that nobody is working on the problem.
ONC, NLM and standards sources
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Standards & Technology
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology · 2024
The starting point for the ONC certification exercises, covering the standards adopted through 45 CFR Part 170 Subpart B, the Certification Program itself, USCDI as the standardised set of data classes and elements, and the Standards Version Advancement Process. It also establishes that FHIR is the current API-focused standard, which is the context for treating HL7 V3 historically.
- 02
Interoperability Standards Platform
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology · 2025
The repository that makes the comparison grid tractable: its Interoperability Standards Advisory organises standards by administrative transactions, clinical content structures, services and — critically for this exercise — vocabulary and terminology. Use its categories as the axes of your grid rather than inventing your own.
- 03
Unified Medical Language System (UMLS)
U.S. National Library of Medicine · 2024
The source the exercise sends you to, and the reason the comparison is interesting. The Metathesaurus carries terms and codes from CPT, ICD-10-CM, LOINC, MeSH, RxNorm and SNOMED CT together with the relationships between them — so it contains both the clinical vocabularies ONC requires and the administrative code sets HIPAA requires, which is exactly the contrast your grid is drawing.
Before the application exercises are submitted
Common mistakes
- Writing one continuous paper instead of answering seven separately numbered exercises.
- Answering from the textbook when the exercise requires reporting a live site's current contents.
- Describing the DSMO process rather than naming the standard and DSMO for one specific request.
- Summarising a regulation without reporting recent changes to it.
- Treating the Reference Information Model as a message format rather than an abstract model.
- Producing prose where the brief explicitly asks for a table or grid.
- Merging clinical vocabularies and billing code sets as though they served the same purpose.
- Skipping the 'is anyone already working on this' part of the team exercise.
Submission checklist
- Each exercise is answered under its own heading, by chapter and number.
- The DSMO answer names a specific request, the standard affected and the interested DSMO.
- Access dates are recorded for every live-site finding.
- The HL7 answer distinguishes the RIM from derived message structures.
- The regulations answer addresses changes, not just content.
- The comparison is presented as a table or grid.
- Clinical vocabularies and administrative code sets are clearly separated.
- The named PHIN VADS value sets are identified specifically.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.