1396r-6(a), however, does require the State Plan to provide that eligible applicants receive aid rather than directly requiring that all eligible persons receive the assistance. Wilson-Coker contends that this wording indicates that, as in Gonzaga, Congress focused on the aggregate requirement and the responsibilities of the various administrative actors rather than on the rights of the recipients. This argument fails because Congress has provided that “[i]n an action brought to enforce a provision of this chapter [which includes the Medicaid statutes], such provision is not to be deemed unenforceable because of its inclusion in a section of this chapter requiring a State plan or specifying the required contents of a State 98, 501-02, 512, 110 S.Ct. 2510, 110 L.Ed.2d 455 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Concourse Rehab. & Nursing Ctr. Inc. v.
holding that health care providers could pursuant to  1983 enforce the boren amendment to the medicaid act holding that title xix providers have federal rights enforceable in a  1983 action 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 42 usc  1396aa13a is enforceable in a suit under  1983