is my uncle ed sullivan it's a different sullivan but we seem to get around to ever know you could you could have been very good the rams i would have taken that as an on your o situation which comes up occasionally in our practice let's say a health plan doesn't cover a certain kind of operation and we call up ahead of time and say listen we're going to be operating for this particular operation in this particular patient will you pay and if you don't pay it will be called into our contract a separate written agreement that was separately entered into between the hospital and information we get back in that query is yeah sure what we go into the operation i would put it to your honor that in that situation the beneficiary is getting more benefits than they bargained for but we're getting only the benefits that we bargained for you know our separate contract with the other bargaining party in this arrangement and it seems to me you know there's been a little threads that we can hang our hats on here one analytical threa know i can't speak for the hospitals beyond what they assign to us i know that we don't know john i will say this if we had the patient and then the state patient had brought in the health plan saying it would add quite a bit to the burden that we were going to have to follow when we make a state come or contract with health plans and that's not what we envision it's not what we bargained for and that's all we're trying to get here is what we pardon for so i  for this service we have a separate contract period they promise to do it separately with the contract so it's here and that's assuming that's true i think service that's what they say they were twenty six alone so we have to assume that's true i understand then sure but i don't think that they say that we will that the contract specifies that we will pay them for the service and i think the type of contract is relevant because people plan it doesn't enter into contracts that are separate from the payment of benefits and it's difficult to determine from the allegations exactly what kind of plan this is i think the complaint is rather vague and it's kind of that those factors have to be taken into account when you're applying that authority and i think that those policy considerations also provide a context for evaluating the nature of the plaintiff's claims here and i think provider nor the employee had any connection to the plant has a plan in place and we have the provider going around the statutory scheme that has specifically been constructed in order let's leave the situation let's say there is a plan of some kind and a medical provider comes to the company and says look we know that this person is not covered under the terms of your plan but you know what we've done a lot of things for you guys in the past we've been very reasonable we've done all sorts of things in working with your company with your company in the past and we really feel for this particular patient it do us a lot of political good and she happens to be the daughter of the mayor of the city and we would like to cut a separate deal with you want to make a contract with you a written contract in which you will promise to pay for her care and we know it's not under the plan but you promised faithfully care and you take part and you enter a contract with them to do that and i would say that in those situations and you know i would think that there would be certain contracts that were separate enough from the plan that could possibly fall outside either but i think even in those circumstances i think you know the policy so i think preemption would apply in a situation like that but there are regulations i think that the different carriers see the carriers and so whether that had a contract with even acceptable i think it has to be approved by the o if the patient dies in your hands you don't get paid but seems like an unusual insurance provision i'm just curious now you didn't read that i think my understanding is that there is a federal law that and tailor it to perhaps some other federal standards that were out there but i just want you to know that there was a tangible benefit that the health claim got from the alleged contract when you look at paragraphs eight those paragraphs show how much money was actually paid by all of the health plans and when you add that that number the amount that they paid plus the amount of underpayment that we claim paragraph twenty two of our complaint where we left one in twenty four thousand dollars of underpayment when you add up what they pay plus our underpayment that totals five hundred ninety three thousand dollars but when you look at our total charges those first paragraphs  listed are total charges were seven hundred fifty one thousand dollars five hundred ninety three thousand dollars divided by seven hundred fifty one thousand dollars shows that that contract gave them a twenty percent discount not a minimum the case should be sent back downstairs to allow us to do that amendment bring it up to snuff and jasper leave and then if we did i guess  cases provide really good authority for showing how this diva case should be cited as far as preemption is concerned