Discussion/Debate Instructions: For this discussion, you will choose a position based on the scenario below and "debate" different possible perspectives. You will be assigned to a group of 3-5 students. Within your group, pick a side and debate the topic below. More than one student may be on each side of the debate. Ensure that different perspectives are equally represented among group members for this debate, for example, two of you might take a position for the defendant, and two may take a position against. Integrate and cite sources from the unit to support your claims.

In this debate, you will analyze the following scenario and address the question below:

Congress has passed a statute that says, providers of power wheelchairs must obtain a physician certification within 30 days of providing the wheelchair to a beneficiary in order to be eligible for payment. The legislative history explains that the 30-day requirement is designed to prevent fraud by requiring a physician to contemporaneously certify the beneficiarys need for a power wheelchair, which is much more expensive than a nonpowered wheelchair. The evidence shows that in the past, when the Government has discovered violations of the rule, it has never sought repayment, but has always put the defendant on prepayment review (meaning it has audited all of the defendants claims before paying them). The Government has now brought a False Claims Act case against a wheelchair supplier for violating the 30-day rule. Was the defendants failure to comply with the 30-day requirement a material violation? Why or why not?