Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
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) ; see also, CHMP, 323 F.3d 782, 793 (9th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that there is nothing arbitrary or capricious about the requirement
C. holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact
D. holding that the sentence alone tells us nothing about whether the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence
E. holding that there is nothing intrinsically unclear about the terms sudden and accidental
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.