you see is not in an ambiguous interpretation of the statute and the words it is only a correct interpretation but not only a new record years i think business what it is and move over one requirement which is that these managed care organizations and part b which then become really for mysie entities which take risk important is if the goal of the statute is clearly to make certain that those entities pay a few it sees not less than they pay the other parties that are in if it were to love us and review that interpretation would get chevron difference it seems that you were lawsuit is going to do in runaround there we were that this payment had to be made to pay not less than requirement had to be made there is no ambiguity with respect to that there's no way ambiguity that that language in that which would weigh in favor of construing it or a matter or the way we say it and secondly that when you wind up with this country if you're following through and put the contract was into your contract the end result because of the way it gets carried into party and that changes a little bit then your weight is she's going to sort out i see your point about the state the language is mandatory this provision has to be in the contract right that's what you're arguing guys ok but but i don't know how to the federally qualified health center for services provided by such also it still raises the question that it still raises a question about what does that mean for services provided by such also we saw have to find that term services provided by such health center not been one in the same as the x definition of an f two a c services you have another barrier which is a reference in tw seventy three a to a written agreement because at least that written agreement means the written agreement provided under twenty three dollars a four that require that the wraparound payment not become a slush fund for the organizations and system and the question is if written agreement which is getting to this i don't want to cut you ask you are so the contract under the section now includes the contract insofar as it addresses pharmaceutical but there's also this reference to any comply with the statute we're going to have a written agreement that deals where wraparound and they're going to have a separate written agreement that deals with prescription drugs that's just and then the no less than language would only apply to the written agreement with respect you have something that says it's supposed to affect in the same manner as it does in part b which means that pay not less than and when you go the of the effort of saying it has to be moved over there has to be something in the good morning mr case the court hearing shown on behalf of the government the district court correctly held that the provision at issue here applies only to federally qualified health and or services plaintiff's argument is that continent something different because it referred to those services provided by the health center when you look at other provisions in the statute it's clear that congress uses terms interchangeably and i can come back and give some examples of that would be helpful but just to finish the point here so when congress refers to services provided by health c in this pay not less than provision congress was referring to federally qualified health and or services which don't include part d prescription drugs and that's not surprising given that the piano lesson requirement goes hand in hand with the provision directing c m s to make a supplemental payment to health centers in certain circumstances and as we know as we were just discussing before everyone agrees that that supplemental payment applies only to federally qualified health and or services not to part d now those two dollars provisions of the pay not less the requirement in the supplemental paying that provision were not to together in the same section of the medicare modernization act and that and the two go hand in hand to pay not less than provision protects the medicare trust fund in light of that supplemental payment has explained the provision is designed to prevent medicare advantage organizations and hill centers taking advantage of that supplemental payment by green to artificially low rates knowing that the health center will get a supplemental payment s to make up the difference and since there's no supplemental payment in part d there's really no reason to apply if it's it's a little bit different but it does seem like there's a parallel argument that they care is making here you know you vince and they've they've i mean you know quite effectively in their breed quoted the th you thirty eight not less than provision and inserting the prescription drug drug plan sponsors into it and the question is provision of federally qualified health interest services and it would but if so that's a bracket in your argument and i do understand your argument and i do appreciate that that's the argument it was persuasive to the district court and i'm not saying it won't be persuasive to us but just to understand the different pieces of your argument if you put aside that argument about the use of the term slightly different federally qualified health center services versus services provided by such health center and the paragraph is the pay not less than provision if you look at some paragraph b which would also getting your brain in along with it it clearly contemplates that the pay not less than requirement goes hand in hand with the supplemental pain that because if health centers that gives the those centers a drug discount and it's supposed to benefit them and make them stretch their dollars further and under your reading that still has a function for patients that have no insurance coverage at all because the federal called five health centers having to pay for those drugs and that's cheaper for them to do that with three hundred and forty b but the argument i gather that cares is making is that  going to be medicare part d patients and other patients and so at the end of the day the market is not going to give him an a last money because of the drug discount they're just go pocket a benefit cut comes out of the three for the b program which just doesn't really make sense in terms of congress is in town and there's the sort of pocket of money that's  subsidy payments to parties sponsors now as a practical matter whether it has any effect in the subsidies that c m s would provide we have no way of knowing you know it would you know just to think about it parties sponsors make billions to see an ass and so to the extent that a party plan sponsor is lowering its costs it means it made a lower bid to c m s and that may require lower subsidy payments as a practical matter though it's unclear how large this would be and so it may not mind that federally qualified health centers don't just provide care to medicare beneficiaries and as you know digital are you know they do provide care under circuitous and provide care to individuals without any insurance and so there is still a benefit for health and there still retain some are there any other i mean other than services that are subject to wrap around supplemental payments and the part  pricing that the prices are asking for here is there any other pricing that's arguably affected one way or the other by your position or by the previous position on not less profit because they get this these things very cheaply and the discount that they're discount is is really for the purposes of lowering drug prices to beneficiaries not necessarily with respect to the pharmacy i mean there's c v s write a soap work they're making a profit off part d it's of like that any of these discounts really are winding up in their pockets or at least they shouldn't be and and e she's really are creatures of congress and what we don't want is we don't want those programs to be in effect tap their money that there are they have no one paid patients who need fact subsidize with part d using freezer and so and the idea i think is if you just put everything together the notion that you get that in essence money that comes through three hundred and thirty dollars retains its ability to be used wholly and completely for parties that don't have any money can't afford to pay and the health center is getting nothing for  thing you look at this in kind of global way or comprehensive way you can see the columns and in the consistency of the pay not less the provision applying to part