call the next matter which is united states of america versus not a male providing medical care but it's not advocating like we're encouraging you to see a doctor family in need in fact the contractor is obligated to enact the family doctor if they don't have one why is that  health services they're also charged to advocate for legal services when there's need to grows or for education services so i think under these advocacy does not to provision then by virtue of that they were also providing legal services where they were  and other cases necessarily involves a fair contract that either pays for medical care treatment work provides medical care treatment then those two elements are necessarily involved in contract does top in the purview thirty forty seven that that this fall farfield from what is available president for this court because sco was a service to children in their own homes this was a broad social service that at times involved medical medical or health related advocacy just as it involved housing advocacy and the right but did not involve provision of the services are you moving away from the position in your papers  in twenty four b is there any case law that would support the position that this only applies to insurers i think lucia the second circuit does solution reject it is narrow interpretation when you do have a contract that is paying for medical care here there is no such contract there is no contract that pays for medical care there's no contract that provides any b h was had a duty to actually a duty though to ensure that services were provided to the people that they were the families that they were contacting such as their schools and their doctors and their therapists and they would work on behalf of those families prison ensuring those types of services were provided so why is this not the type of program that congress would not want to be abused by false documentation seeking payment for services that were never rendered this  to me doesn't doesn't the argument doesn't the position you're taking run the risk of excluding the entire field of medical social worker providers from coverage here this is my second my second reason your honor the first being covered in criminal liability does arise however health care fraud is an inappropriate statute in this context to cover this this activity because there was again no providing medical care or treatment the health care benefit program existed because payments were being made to the methadone clinic from insurance companies and so reveals this court's position on on what health care benefit program isn't that in necessarily means that the defendant was effectively denied counsel below the defendant's claim has ben that it was so obvious under prevailing law that the school program is not a health care benefit program that his counsel was effectively not acting as counsel and failing to raise that argument well making this claim the defendant has an accurate perception of the legislative history and a grossly distorted view of the legal landscape that was confronting defense counsel in this case at the time of the trial and even today the primary basis the defendant has advanced up until today was that congress wrote a statute specifically focused on the contract and provisions on how untrained social workers certain people with master's level degrees and so forth so this is a contract that the city laid out for the purposes providing medical benefits items and services to at was children defendant's bringing a friend argument repeatedly suggest that this contract tangentially touches on the provision of medical care that is complete not true on the contract in this case and examples of crutches and yard sales and i can very interesting hypotheticals but they certainly don't reflect what happened with contract this was a contract that was bargained for by the city and we expressed terms were set out and the group cheated in the sense by the defendant agreeing to take this contract those terms require that the scope providers contact the medical personnel to get an assessment of the children's medical needs as soon as the children were assigned for care the contract actually specifies within the first month that the child is assigned to them the medical they are to contact told vision havior health early intervention practitioners and obtain medical records including records for interviews ations and visits with primary care physicians and specialists then they are required expressed about the terms of the contract to assure the provision of appropriate medical dental and psychiatric care including by contacting each doctor at least annually i was the child's medical needs required more frequent contact and assuring that the child was actually seeing the physicians including my calling the doctor's offices to confirm that the children had kept no guidance in the section on what constitutes an item but certainly hard piece of paper that has the child's medical record on it which some people and to me and it's only a medical benefit in the sense of this is i mean that spending essentially can seasons reply brief that even if they didn't mean just insurance they might have meant insurance like things and this is certainly insurance like this is the city and then find these children trying to make sure they don't fall below the line as tragically clear in this case when the services were not the river so when w what we see is that a reasonable attorney reading the statute would read the definition and see that it's any plan or contract so of which any medical benefit item or look did my client have medical benefits i didn't serve as required and then you would look at the scope contract and he would see these provisions that are rife throughout the contract which i've tried to outline here briefly for you he would see that and at that point he might well he might not look at the legislative history of the statute because he knows as the supreme court has told us we look at the plain words and if they're not in progress we don't look further but if you look at the legislative history with certain final guidance to suggest to him but only insurance defense counsel in this case did the job he was required to do under our constitution he chose to use his finite resources of time to create a defense that he thought might  it has very noble purposes which i believe in very heartily and we do need to make sure that defendants who are put in prison are not there for liberty has not been taken from them in violation of their if it wasn't that would not make his counsel effective and even if his counsel is deemed ineffective for not having raised it we do not believe the defendant has suffered cognizing or prejudice under section twenty two fifty five either child care and homemaker these this is the provision of a convert the gives rise to the assumption that they were fulfilling the elements of such a thirteen forty seven but to say that they were providing were paying for medical care were treatment now you're getting advocacy is much more in line with the second element of the statute which is to get you to be in connection with the delivery of health care benefits  ither services and the government seems completely those two elements that if something is in connection with the delivery of health care benefits out of the services there must also be a medical benefit or service but advocacy for health care just for the advocacy for legal services were education services as provided by the contract if the intention of the service here is to ensure some and medical professionals from the purview of thirteen forty seven women we believe that they would not because medical professionals or those who are providing  medical treatment or care were involved in in the provision of medical treatment or care what's mental health advocacy in the pursuit of the things that you read you said mental health that what what is