for bad debt, or CMS’ interpretive guidance on this issue. The court disagrees. As discussed above, the must-bill policy is set forth in PRM §§ 310, 312 and 322 and further clarified in JSM 370. See California Hospitals Crossover Bad Debts Group Appeal PRRB Dec. No. 2000-D80 (2000 WL 33170706, *8). The must-bill policy has been consistently articulated in the final decisions of the Secretary addressing this issue. See, e.g., Hoag Mem. Hosp. Presbyterian Provider v. Blue Cross, 2002 WL 31548714 (2002); Hospital de Area de Carolina, Admin. Dec. No. 93-D23; Concourse Nursing Home, PRRB Dec. No. 83-D152; St. Joseph Hospital, PRRB Dec. No. 84-D109. Similarly, this court has already affirmed the must-bill policy. GCI Health Care Ctrs. v. Thompson, 209 F.Supp.2d 63, 74 (D.D.C.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also, CHMP, 323 F.3d 782, 793 (9th
holding that an employeess selfserving statements about his ability  are insufficient to contradict an employers negative assessment of that ability such statements may create a material dispute about the employees ability but do nothing to create a dispute about the employers honesty  do nothing in other words to establish that the proffered reason is a pretext for discrimination holding that there is nothing arbitrary or capricious about the requirement holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact holding that the sentence alone tells us nothing about whether the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence holding that there is nothing intrinsically unclear about the terms sudden and accidental