"The Court finds this line of argument unpersuasive for several reasons. Most significantly, Allina's heavy reliance on the above-cited cases is unavailing because none of those decisions directly dealt with the precise issue before this Court–i.e., the phrase “entitled to benefits under Part A.” Rather, all of those courts were called upon to interpret the other component of the Medicaid fraction's numerator–the requirement that patients be “eligible” for Medicaid. For this very reason, our Court of Appeals “declined to follow” those same cases, characterizing those courts' discussion of the phrase “entitled to benefits” as dicta. Northeast Hosp., 657 F.3d at 12 n.7. This Court agrees with that assessment and follows the lead of our Circuit. Those decisions do not lend any meaningful support to Allina's arguments here. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has rejected the substance of this “eligible” versus “entitled” argument as unpersuasive in any event, observing in Northeast Hospital that “the fact that the DSH factions speak of ‘eligibility’ for Medicaid but ‘entitlement’ to Medicare” was not “enlightening.” Id. at 12. Instead, as the Circuit went on to state, “the Secretary's interpretation of ‘entitled’ as ‘meeting the statutory criteria for entitlement’ ... does not actually collapse the terms.” Id. (explaining that an individual could be “ ‘eligible’ for, but not ‘entitled’ to, Part A benefits because one has not yet ‘enrolled’ in the program”). This Court concurs. The Secretary's reading of the statute at issue here does not equate these two terms, and Allina's insistence otherwise lacks merit."
Allina Health System v. Sebelius,
--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 5530609, D.D.C., October 08, 2013 (NO. 09-CV-1889 (RLW))