exceeds the amount of the payments provided under the [MCO] contract.” 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(bb)(5)(A). Similarly, in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), the explanations of how the state should calculate the amount it must pay an FQHC for its services are uniformly preceded by the declaration that the state plan “shall provide for payment” for such services in that amount. Id. § 1396a(bb)(2)-(4). These explanations are “highly specific,” Belaval I, 397 F.3d at 75, and are written in “individualistic terms, rather than at the aggregate level of institutional policy or practice,” id. at 74. Notably, other circuits have held that the calculation methodology provisions of § 1396a(bb) are enforceable under § 1983. See Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Sanford, 509 F.3d 204, 209-12 (4th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Cmty. Health Ctr. v. Wilson-Coker, 311 F.3d
recognizing such a claim under  1983 holding state is not a proper defendant under  1983 holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 holding that patient could sue state agency under  1983 for breaching its obligation under the balance billing provision of the medicaid statute holding that a healthcare provider in a nonmanaged care system may sue under  1983 to enforce its claim that the formula used by the state agency to calculate its reimbursements was improper under  1396abb