not precluding the possibility of a provider’s establishing the criteria of § 413.80(e) by alternative means ... [t]his would not, however, justify [the court] refusing to accept the Secretary’s [must-bill policy].”). It is well established that courts “may not set aside the agency’s interpretation merely because another interpretation was possible and seems better, so long as the agency’s interpretation is within the range of reasonable meanings that the words of the regulation admit.” Psychiatric Institute of D.C. v. Schweiker, 669 F.2d 812, 814 (D.C.Cir.1981). 2. The Must-Bill Policy Is Not New Plaintiffs argue that the Administrator’s Decision is arbitrary and capricious because it is based on a policy that cannot be found in the Medicare Act, the Medicare regulation governing r ) (<HOLDING>). 3. The Must-Bill Requirement Did Not Require
holding that the mustbill policy is a reasonable implementation of the reimbursement system and consistent with the governing statute and regulations holding that a phrase should be interpreted consistent with the context of the statute in which it is contained holding that the implementation of a policy that violated a consent decree could give rise to contempt proceedings recognizing that the sentence imposed should be consistent with the protection of the public holding that a medicare provider was responsible for familiarizing itself with the legal requirements of cost reimbursement and obtaining an agency interpretation of the applicable regulations