the district court’s conclusion that the MCCA mandates a resource-first approach because there is no express provision for the pre-eligibility transfer of income. First, the MCCA does not prohibit the pre-eligibility transfer of income from the institutionalized spouse to the community spouse. Subsections (b) and (d), although not setting forth conditions for the transfer of income prior to the eligibility determination, do not expressly prohibit such a transfer. The better reading of subsections (b) and (d) is that these subsections provide a framework for preserving income for the community spouse by limiting the amount of the eligible institutionalized spouse’s income which must be used to pay medical expenses. See Thomas v. Commissioner, 425 Mass. 738, 682 N.E.2d 874, 879 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the purpose of the pre-eligibility
holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation holding that the prior conviction was valid for calculation of the defendants criminal history because his waiver of the right to counsel was valid holding that massachusetts incomefirst approach was a valid interpretation of  1396r5 holding that incomefirst approach is permissible interpretation of mcca holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it