Although the Providers concede that they have no property interest in remaining part of the state Medicaid program, they assert “a right to due process regarding any submitted claims that are denied by FSSA,” and “[a]t a minimum, this requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.” (Pis.’ Mot. TRO & Prelim. Inj. 15.) This appears to be a valid distinction between property rights. Compare Grason v. State of Ill. Inspector Gen., 559 Fed.Appx. 573, 574 (7th Cir.2014) (“I[t] is doubtful that current Medicaid providers even have a protected interest in continuing in the program.”)(citing Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941, 953 (9th Cir.2009)); see also Senape v. Constantino, 936 F.2d 687, 690-91 (2d Cir.1991), with Pers. Care Prods., Inc. v. Hawkins, 635 F.3d 155, 159 & n. 20 (5th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Tekkno Labs., Inc. v. Perales, 933 F.2d 1093,
holding that the state police is a state agency holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review holding that when a state agency is investigating a providers past payments for fraud neither federal or texas law gives a provider a property right in reimbursements withheld on claims not within the investigations scope but acknowledging that the agency may only refuse to pay for cause and claims may not be withheld indefinitely quoting yorktown med lab inc v perales 948 f2d 84 89 2d cir1991 holding that such claims however cannot be brought directly against the state or a state agency but only against state officials in their official capacities holding that court may not accept claims of fraud based on speculation