panel took note of cases that would support plaintiffs’ new claim, citing Health Care for All, Inc. v. Romney, 2005 WL 1660677, at *10-11 (D.Mass. July 14, 2005) (“Setting reimbursement levels so low that private dentists cannot afford to treat Medicaid enrollees effectively frustrates [§ 1396a(a)(8)] by foreclosing the opportunity for enrollees to receive medical assistance at all, much less in a timely manner.”); Oklahoma Chapter of Am. Academy of Pediatrics v. Fogarty, 366 F.Supp.2d 1050, 1109 (N.D.Okla.2005) (finding a violation of § 1396a(a)(8) and reasoning that “[w]ithout financial assistance (provider reimbursement) sufficient to attract an adequate number of providers, reasonably prompt assistance is effectively denied”); Sobky v. Smoley, 855 F.Supp. 1123 (E.D.Cal.1994) (<HOLDING>). Id. at 540-541. In response to plaintiffs’
holding that an administrative agency is not subject to a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with an order holding defendants liable for failure to comply with  1396aa8 where insufficient funding  has caused providers of methadone maintenance to place eligible individuals on waiting lists for treatment holding that denial of petition for modification of maintenance was proper when the parties agreement prohibited modification of maintenance holding failure to comply with  851b was harmless error in part because defendant did not comply with  851c procedures for challenging prior convictions holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits