precondition in RFP No. 31-06, without providing sufficient turn-around time to allow non-accredited providers to comply and submit a proposal before the imposed deadline. An owner of Stanton-Negley explained the impact that RFP No. 31-06 would have on his business, stating that the inability to provide specialty pharmacy drugs covered by the Project not only would mean an annual loss of $600,000 in revenue for Stanton-Negley but also would have a collateral impact on other revenues because MA recipients of specialty pharmacy drugs in the counties covered by RFP No. 31-06 likely would seek all their drug needs from one source, i.e., the preferred providers chosen under RFP No. ty interest in receiving a specific dollar amount from participation in the MA Program. See Ohio Casualty (<HOLDING>); Rite Aid (holding that, where a provider of
holding that a utility can claim no rate as a legal right that is other than the filed rate whether fixed or merely accepted by the commission holding that an insurer has no property right to charge a specific rate ad infinitum and therefore there is no denial of due process in a statutorily mandated rate reduction holding that once a rate is filed with the appropriate agency except for review of the agencys orders the courts can assume no right to a different rate on that ground that in its opinion it is the only or the more reasonable rate holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding that the proper rate for prejudgment interest is the rate fixed by the parties in a contract