context: As is readily apparent from the analysis quoted above, the Wilder Court made perfectly clear that in concluding that "there can be little doubt that healthcare providers are the intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment," it was relying on the language in the Boren Amendment requiring a state plan to provide for "payment of the hospital services, nursing facility services, and services in an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded provided under the plan."
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 6 F.3d 519, 526
citation_a.parenthetical: "Wilder concluded that institutional providers were intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment because the Amendment concerned their reimbursement."
citation_a.sentence: See Ark. Med. Soc’y, Inc. v. Reynolds, 6 F.3d 519, 526 (8th Cir.1993) (“Wilder concluded that institutional providers were intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment because the Amendment concerned their reimbursement.”); see also Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries, Inc. v. Hood, 235 F.3d 908, 925 (5th Cir.2000) (“[T]he [Wilder] Court concluded that there was little doubt that the providers were the intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment because it established a system for reimbursement of providers and was phrased in terms bene-fitting health care providers, in that it required a state plan to provide for their payment.”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted); Visiting Nurse Ass’n of N. Shore, Inc. v. Bullen, 93 F.3d 997, 1004 (1st Cir.1996) (“The Wilder Court ... observed that the statute ‘is phrased in terms benefitting health care providers,’ and ... then proceeded to illustrate how the plain language of the Boren Amendment ‘establishes a system for reimbursement of providers.’ ”) (emphasis omitted).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 93 F.3d 997, 1004
citation_b.parenthetical: "The Wilder Court ... observed that the statute 'is phrased in terms benefitting health care providers,' and ... then proceeded to illustrate how the plain language of the Boren Amendment 'establishes a system for reimbursement of providers.' "
citation_b.sentence: See Ark. Med. Soc’y, Inc. v. Reynolds, 6 F.3d 519, 526 (8th Cir.1993) (“Wilder concluded that institutional providers were intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment because the Amendment concerned their reimbursement.”); see also Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries, Inc. v. Hood, 235 F.3d 908, 925 (5th Cir.2000) (“[T]he [Wilder] Court concluded that there was little doubt that the providers were the intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment because it established a system for reimbursement of providers and was phrased in terms bene-fitting health care providers, in that it required a state plan to provide for their payment.”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted); Visiting Nurse Ass’n of N. Shore, Inc. v. Bullen, 93 F.3d 997, 1004 (1st Cir.1996) (“The Wilder Court ... observed that the statute ‘is phrased in terms benefitting health care providers,’ and ... then proceeded to illustrate how the plain language of the Boren Amendment ‘establishes a system for reimbursement of providers.’ ”) (emphasis omitted).