agencies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. These cases are inapplica ble here because P.G. Hospital has sued a private company, to which § 1983 is inapplicable. Furthermore, an MCO is not deemed a state actor by virtue of its contract with the state. See. Taormina v. Suburban Woods Nursing Homes, 765 F.Supp.2d 667, 672 (E.D.Pa.2011); Karen L. ex rel. Jane L. v. Physicians Health Services, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 94, 104-05 (D.Conn.2001). Because the Medicaid statute does not expressly authorize a private cause of action to enforce its provisions, P.G. Hospital must establish that Congress intended to create a private remedy under the Medicaid statute. See Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 363-64, 112 S.Ct. 1360, 118 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992). To det 9-CV-00417, 2010 WL 3000718, at *9-10 (E.D.Ky. July 28, 2010) (<HOLDING>); Solter, 215 F.Supp.2d at 540 (holding that a
recognizing right to privacy in receipt of health care services to the extent consistent with providing adequate medical care and the safety and good order of the facility recognizing that a patients choice of a health care facility does not render the facility a beneficiary under 502a1b holding that a medicaid recipient who was involuntarily removed from private nursing did not have a private right of action under the medicaid statute against a nursing home holding that the medicaid statute did not create an enforceable cause of action against a private health care facility holding that health care providers could pursuant to  1983 enforce the boren amendment to the medicaid act