this Court affords the Manual and the Directors Letter some deference. 4. Retroactivity Mass. Services argues that in 2002 and 2003 there was no clear statement that case management services did not include direct services, and that section 1396n(g)(2)(A)(iii) cannot apply retroactively. Pl.’s Mem. 2-3. Mass. Services claims therefore that the exclusionary rule applying to all direct services which, was the basis for the Board’s Decision was, at that time, arbitrarily adopted by the Board. Id. at 7. The conditions imposed upon a státes’s receipt of funds cannot be retroactive — that is, after a state’s receipt of monies, Congress or an agency cannot then place specific conditions on its use. See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (<HOLDING>). In Bennett v. Kentucky Dep’t of Edu., 470
recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary holding that the act is retroactive holding that retroactive application of agency regulations promulgated after the conduct at issue is disfavored holding no retroactive application holding retroactive application