were performed. The court concluded that, because the complaint included the dates of specific services that were recorded by the physicians but never were provided, such allegations constituted “more than probable, nigh likely, circumstantial evidence that the doctors’ fraudulent records caused the hospital’s billing system in due course to present fraudulent claims to the Government.” Id. at 192. Accordingly, the court further concluded that it would “stretch the imagination” for the doctors to continually record services that were not provided, but “to deviate from the regular billing track at the last moment so that the recorded, but unprovided, services never get billed.” Id.; see also United States ex rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Prods., L.P., 579 F.3d 13, 30 (1st Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Applying these principles, we hold that when
holding that health care providers could pursuant to  1983 enforce the boren amendment to the medicaid act holding that boren amendment created substantive federal right enforceable by health care providers to reasonable and adequate rates holding that 42 usc  1396aa13a which requires states to make reasonable reimbursement to providers was enforceable by the providers pursuant to section 1983 holding that the rule does not apply to bar tort claims against service providers holding that in scheme alleging kickbacks to health care providers allegations regarding the dates and amounts of the false claims filed by these providers with the medicare program met the standard imposed by rule 9b