Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of all students as suggested in its May 27, 2005 waiver request) exceeds the scope of the Secretary’s 2003 regulations, which were subsequently affirmed by Congress in the IDEA of 2004. Thus, the Secretary argues that her “regulations are narrowly tailored to address a particular issue with respect to very small segments of the ... students with disabilities populations; in contrast, the State’s proposed plan amendment would eliminate Congress’s requirement of annual grade-level testing of these students.” Sec’y’s Reply Brief [doc. # 151], at 5. The Secretary did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law in concluding that the State’s proposed plan amendments were contrary to the dictates of the Act. See, e.g., Bellevue Hosp. Ctr. v. Leavitt, 443 F.3d 163, 177 (2d Cir.2006) . The very clear message of Congress in the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where hospital used balance billing that since the hospital had already received payments from the patient and his health insurer and had agreed to accept that amount as payment in full for its services there was no longer any amount owing to the hospital and thus it could not assert a statutory hospital lien for the difference between its charges and the amount received in light of the negotiated network agreements
B. holding that knowing submission of medicare claims for services that are not covered and payable under the medicare act is a violation of the fca
C. holding that the department of health and human services did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in implementing statutory requirement to adjust medicare reimbursements to reflect differences in hospital wage levels across geographic areas
D. holding that the knowing submission of medicare claims for services that were not covered and payable under the medicare act was an fca violation
E. holding that removal of suit against physicians employed by a federally funded community health center to federal court by the defendants on the ground that they were covered under the public health service act was improper as the department of health and human services had not yet made a determination whether defendants should be deemed to be employees
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.