federal right. Accordingly, the district court was incorrect to consider the amendment merely a restatement of the original claim. The issue thus becomes whether HCMF’s proposed amendment was nevertheless futile. HCMF asserts that the claim presented in the proposed amendment was not futile because other federal courts have permitted enforcement of the federal rights provided in the Boren Amendment despite its repeal. See Belshe, 188 F.3d at 1095, 1099; Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin., 47 F.Supp.2d 1352, 1357 (S.D.Fla.1999), vacated in part sub nom. Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 225 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir.2000). But cf. Children’s Seashore House v. Waldman, 197 F.3d 654, 659 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 2742, 147
holding without addressing the potential impact of hcfas letter that the repeal of the boren amendment removed a partys ability to enforce any substantive right holding that boren amendment created substantive federal right enforceable by health care providers to reasonable and adequate rates holding that health care providers could pursuant to  1983 enforce the boren amendment to the medicaid act holding that a partys failure to raise objections to the report and recommendation waives the partys right to review in the district court holding that the 2005 amendment was a substantive change