Section 1396r-6, so it is to the latter section we must turn in assessing whether Congress intended to give Medicaid recipients enforceable rights. Subsection (a) of Section 1396r-6 provides that “each State plan approved under this sub-chapter must provide that each family which was receiving [AFDC] in at least 3 of the 6 months immediately preceding the month in which such family becomes ineligible for such aid, because of ... income from employment ... remain eligible for assistance under the plan ... during the immediately succeeding 6-month period.” This language focuses much more directly than does the FERPA provision on the individual’s entitlement. In particular, it contains no qualifying language akin to FERPA’s “policy or practice.” 249 F.3d 136, 143-44 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION For the reasons we have discussed,
holding that the claims to a statutory benefit had not yet vested when the legislature eliminated the benefit holding that there is a difference between a debtor attempting to pursue an action for his own benefit and a trustee pursuing an action for the benefit of the creditors holding that the avoidance powers provide for recovery only if the recovery is for the benefit of the estate holding that a plantshutdown benefit is not an optional form of benefit holding prior to gonzaga that medicaid provision requiring nursing facilities to provide certain services was intended for the benefit of the recipients and not for the benefit of the facilities