claims essentially as claims for benefits, ... and the fact that whatever constitutional claims respondents assert are clearly too insubstantial to support subject matter jurisdiction, ... we view this case as involving only respondents’ Part A claims. Ringer, 466 U.S. at-n. 4, 104 S.Ct. at 2018 n. 4, 80 L.Ed.2d at 632 n. 4. Other courts have concluded that Ringer does not bar such claims. See Hatcher v. Heckler, 772 F.2d 427, 430-32 & n. 7 (8th Cir.1985) (concluding that constitutional challenges to the Medicare Act itself are not precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) because such claims are "collateral to, and not ‘inextricably intertwined with,’ claims for entitlement”); Michigan Academy of Family Physicians v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 757 F.2d 91, 93-94 (6th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>), cert. granted sub nom. Heckler v. Michigan
holding that heckler v ringer does not bar constitutional and statutory challenge to regulation promulgated by secretary for health  human services when this challenge is unrelated to a claim for benefits holding constitutional challenge to void statute may be raised for first time on appeal holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended holding the failure to comply with the act does not bar defendant from raising a constitutional challenge to jury selection procedures recognizing that categorical constitutional challenge was fundamentally similar to asapplied constitutional challenge initially raised on appeal