fundamental point in our appeal and that the courts the district court dismissal of certain claims of the motion to dismiss the stage and we find that there was significant error with the dismissal of those claims because they fly in the face of the plane express enumerated preventive services in addition the tried apartment the treasury h h s and late and department of labor were charged with implementing and issuing regulations and rules  same the import is that st we start with the plain language that the it requires coverage and nd we have to try to partment who were charged by congress to issue these regulations and rules and their two thousand and ten in term final rules  state that the reasons for the a c s preventive service mandate was so that access and utilization of the services would increase and to address the underutilization of preventive service those are not accurate those are fundamentally incorrect statements of what the a p a itself states we were not asking the court to read any procedural requirements and the a c i and the result that we got was the district court reading out of the the term coverage and the district court did that which this court in held was improper in an underling quest this court stated that the expressed language of the statute must be followed expressed language here is the word coverage in addition in link with the court the court also said that even if there is an express legislative history or that congress didn't foresee a potential back insurers obligation doesn't have to explain the meaning of everything that's in its comprehensive general liability policy or its own policy but i may contend depending on the issue it may have to adequately describe that but what we're asking for here your honor is the same fundamental coverage that one would receive for any type of service preventive or not i don't understand how well time the less than a year right no your honor so the essay was an act in two thousand and ten and the preventive services requirement but the preventive services requirements were put into place as of august of two thousand and twelve so it was over two years well mark didn't give plaintiff belly or plaintiff york that information they couldn't get it on the on line provider finder tool because well mark didn't have the ability to find it there we can go on and search for an obstetrician gynecologist  a general practitioner provider but they both knew who the providers were they did not know who the in network providers were they delivered care for get in that work they knew the lactation providers would respectfully your honor as a health care specialty has to be segregated and put in the all of your on line and other other information in order to comply with your view respectfully  don't i don't agree with that position and characterization of what our argument is the a cia you know whether whether well mark likes to us yet or not yesterday was put into place to protect not only the insured but also with her specifically somehow create new specialties not otherwise recognized in the medical or in the medical you know in the in the community or the state because of requirement that in order for the service to be covered by insurance that the provider be licensed that is not a requirement well mark has never contended it goes beyond just these two individuals reaching out to well mark they reached out to well mark they couldn't find it online they couldn't find it when they talk to the customers a customer service representatives be included transcripts of the customer service rep halls where these women specifically said who can i go to in network and they coverage with respect to mr york she submitted her claim her claim was denied she appealed that claim and it was denied and that's why we say well mark well mark's policy was they were not covering out of network lactation services because they took the view that they had possibly individuals in network who would cover those they never did a survey they never internally they had externally reveal to their insurers who that their network providers were they never did never knew internally who was providing that they took a leap of faith that there were hospitals in the area of all of their insured that would have liked asian consultants that would have like face value and what stand them from the district court order on the motion to dismiss knocking out our theory as our arguments whatever you want to call them about administrative barriers and information is that we are blocked from getting any type of discovery  up but we all know him well those of us who have health care insurance and maybe maybe have a dentist who's not in that work provider know the distinction but it certainly i certainly and i don't i know what for that reason but i certainly can't  find the way each individual insured that chooses to to have a group of preferred providers that it calls a network forward they want to make sure that they're insured under a plan that if they need to access lactation services it's done properly and you might ministry to remove the options other than the litigation you're going to take your honor not that we're a the district court correctly found that the undisputed facts demonstrated that wal mart did satisfy its obligations to provide coverage for lactation services to these plaintiffs specifically the court focused on t fact that well mark had lactation providers and it's not work that these plaintiffs not only found but used on several occasions the district court correctly held that under the plaintiff york and plaintiff bailey both had prenatal activation counseling from deborah hubbard an internationally board certified lactation consultant who works at the university of iowa hospitals and clinics plaintiff york  actually had lactation counseling with her two older children at the university of iowa hospitals and clinics and again with the child at issue in the complaint she saw mary johnson and this is post partum now she saw mary johnson and internationally well who provides a service in your network she had already told the customer service representative that she had been at the university of iowa hospital so there was no need for the customer service representative to say anything about university of iowa hospital  because these plaintiffs found them and utilized them at the university of iowa hospital and the university of iowa hospital and clinics have been providing these services for years but at no charge to wal mart that's correct your honor but why should one mark be found not violated the affordable care act if it's in network provider decides not to charge at all for the service maybe this is too hypothetical but had they gone back to those same the record but of what well mark should do under the statute if it if it has providers who would do the whole service without charge period but those are not available and so the only effective choice aren't in the record so we don't know what would have happened in that instance there are but what am i pad network providers and these me back i was going to ask where in the record do i go to get to get well marks definition of  d it can provide i think in paper form on my a listing of all providers that it has a contract with has a relationship with whereby they are going to pay the provider a certain amount they are going to consultant that we have they want right from the pretty how important this is not rocket science situation everyone knows that you know mom is having prenatal care mom is exposed to providers during that prenatal care mom has to be in the hospital and is exposed to providers in the hospital and that those services are brought to them it's part of a continuum of care that they're proud of and this process has worked before it works now works for these two plaintiffs they found now where providers it's good to think that they didn't know how to find the provider it did it we know from the record eight had these services had the provider the provider was even calling her bad but she admitted to her physician that she did not have her phone on her that's a violation of the affordable care act on behalf of wal mart it makes no sense provide coverage and do it without cost sharing now coverage is a term of art it means provide something within the scope of an insurance plan it doesn't mean to remove every without kosh airing and then the regulations go on to define exactly what that means but there's no requirement for either the only the only thing you're sure that has to be read into the term coverage more than what is there a claim that comment really means abscessed access means removing any and all obstacles that the member has to getting that benefit but the term access claims procedures this is talking about i can see where a bureaucrat would make the analogy is permissible because there is no language indicating that coverage conceptually to remove a barrier to getting preventive services he wanted to increase access and they did it by removing a car sharing let's not pay about twenty dollars when we go to the doctor let's go to the doctor and not worry about that that's all th it is a term of art and it simply was that not all insurance plans provided coverage under the terms of their plans for lactation counseling so the car sharing part is how to do it but you have to put the coverage in your benefit plan to begin with so the idea that you have your plan on august i think this was an act on the th of august on the th of august your plan doesn't say i have access to preventive services well mark did not remove financial barriers well mark did not identify the persuasive providers that they contracted with to whom the insurance could go to so that the financial barrier was removed and i am arguing on an individual plaintiff level if we go to miss york if we go to the interaction between miss york and wal mart's customer service rep which is in the record starting around plaintiff one hundred and twenty seven it shows that she asked do you provide coverage without caution st specific provider they said no we can't find that person and then she said ok let me see i'm trying to find another lactation consultant he tried to do that he looked in his system because the way that we were constrained by the judge's ruling at the motion to dismiss throughout the litigation we respectfully propose that we would be going back to the point where we would have been if the motion to