rate decisions for rate years ending in or before 1989. Nothing in the record supports the Hospitals’ contention that the Department’s interpretation of § 256.9695(1)(b) resulted in the implementation of an unreasonable appeals procedure. As we set out above, each of the Hospitals, at the very least, had a 60-day period in which to file their pre-1989 “case-mix” appeals. The Hospitals argue that the imposition of a 60-day appeals period without notice is unreasonable. However, as participants in the Medicaid program, the Hospitals had a duty to familiarize themselves with the legal requirements of the appeals process and obtain a written agency interpretation of the statute. See Heckler v. Community Health Servs., 467 U.S. 51, 64-65, 104 S.Ct. 2218, 2225-27, 81 L.Ed.2d 42 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, 42 C.F.R. § 447.253(e) requires
holding that agency is bound by its regulations holding that the applicable regulations give the director not the designated responsible operator the power to develop evidence on the responsible operator issue holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it recognizing the considerable deference afforded to regulations concerning medicare holding that a medicare provider was responsible for familiarizing itself with the legal requirements of cost reimbursement and obtaining an agency interpretation of the applicable regulations