Town Court, 586 F.2d at 277). Finally, the court stated that the government has a strong interest in expeditious provider-termination procedures for two reasons: first, “[t]he Secretary’s responsibility for insuring the safety and care of elderly and disabled Medicare patients is of primary importance,” and second, “the government has a strong interest in minimizing the expenses of administering the Medicare program.” Id. Balancing the government’s strong interest in an expeditious procedure against the provider’s less significant interest and the relatively small risk of erroneous termination, the court held that a provider’s procedural due process rights are adequately protected by a post-termination hearing. See id.; see also Varandani v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 307, 310-11 (4th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>), cert. dismissed, 484 U.S. 1052, 108 S.Ct.
recognizing duty by examining physician even absent formal physicianpatient relationship holding physician not entitled to hearing prior to termination in a medicare program under eldridge holding that a suspended lawyer remains subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court for acts committed while suspended holding that a physician is not entitled to a formal hearing before being suspended from the medicare program under eldridge holding that a nursing home participating in the medicaid program is not entitled to a pretermination hearing