because it was made by physicians and nursing home administrators who are private parties. The Supreme Court explained its rationale: “Those decisions ultimately turn on medical judgments made by private parties according to professional standards that are not established by the State.” Id. at 1008, 102 S.Ct. 2777. The Court distinguished situations where the state “affirmatively command[ed]” the discharge or transfer of Medicaid patients, id. at 1005, 102 S.Ct. 2777, or where medical judgments were made by utilization review committees mandated by federal regulation. See id. at 1008, 102 S.Ct. 2777. A key inquiry under Blum and its progeny is which entity made the decision being challenged. See id. at 1005, 102 S.Ct. 2777; see also Kraemer v. Heckler, 737 F.2d 214, 220 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Catanzano v. Dowling, 60 F.3d 113, 117 (2d
holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision holding  2254d authorizes federal court to review state courts decision only and not explanation of decision holding that state courts failure to discuss or even to be aware of federal precedent does not in itself render the decision contrary to federal law holding that a party losing in state court may not seek what would amount to appellate review of that decision in federal court based on the claim that the decision violates the losers federal rights holding that the decision of a utilization review committee may well constitute state action where the decisionmaking process itself appears to be governed largely by federal guidelines