at 1242. Finally, the government has a high interest in not conducting pre-deprivation hearings. These hearings would lead to additional administrative expense; would delay defendant’s ability to enforce her valid regulations, promulgated pursuant to the Medicare Act to the detriment of the public;, and would lead to additional expenses, incurred in the form of reimbursements paid as Medicare benefits to plaintiff. Thus, on balance, the factors weigh heavily against plaintiff, and it cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of its procedural due process claim. In addition, in the specific context of this case, courts typically have held that pre-deprivation hearings are not required to satisfy procedural due process. See Varandani v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 307, 309-10 (4th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); see also Cathedral Rock of N. College Hill,
holding similar new mexico physician license revocation procedures satisfied due process notwithstanding absence of a probable cause hearing prior to institution of proceedings against physician holding that a nursing home participating in the medicaid program is not entitled to a pretermination hearing holding that a physician is not entitled to a formal hearing before being suspended from the medicare program under eldridge holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of social security disability benefits holding physician not entitled to hearing prior to termination in a medicare program under eldridge