to help me understand a little bit better where your client is deriving the property interest and specifically with reference to the fact that there are documents that attach to the complaint that suggest that he's in a the state plan has to provide that any individual eligible for medical assistance may have to change such assistance from any institution qualified to perform the service rendered takes to provide it except just provided in section thirteen ninety six dollars you dash to  and then that provision speaks of managed care plan so your argument is when you look at that provision we should read these two together to say that the exception clause limit but doesn't mela five the choice the provider in managed care plans so that even if we assume looking at the complaint that the allegation here is that your client was in such a plan that that his he had a choice  provider within it in my understanding the argument correctly oh your your honor i think that's exactly that's exactly right i would only add that as i've noted about how this particular plan fits into the overall scheme of the medicaid statute i would also note that on this record it is again a plausible to him for you have one reveals no one thinks this is a desirable result this is something that could usually work a shouldn't say they should say on this record it's possible too for that there is a low cost with ticks in this and so this is just the sort of error i submit  i just ask one quick question you said that on the stats for question it's not proper right now because you need more fact finding and i guess i'm wondering what's what record development is necessary i mean whether this particular limited quiney for choice of provider on this record has been violated there is a waiver by statute that a state that chooses to implement a managed care plan is granted a waiver from otherwise clickable pieces of the medicaid statute i don't think that is the kind of waiver one which indicates that states can restrict the freedom of choice required by section eight hundred and twenty three and so the statute clearly indicates without having to go into any record development that we have one more minute i hear initial three twenty three as those cases have to do with whether the ticks entirely a certain provider from the provisions of medicaid or not is kind of one off case where it can be resolved administrative way where one person does not necessarily get the outcome that you know he preferred or that it maybe should have been should happen under the rules but it's not the same kind of claim that the other cases providing for private action under section twenty three dollars have been have recognized  well can i ask about the about the effect of one thousand three hundred and ninety six you to because as i understand you have a series argument it is that notwithstanding that that even if his client falls within that exception clause and we look provider by default doesn't that suggest that you still have to mean that you have a property interest here in that the property interest is not gated within the exemption i would say the fact that the back i would also just point out one other one of the thing which is talking about the council mentioned section twenty three b which i think is very solid and noted only covers family planning services and supplies and i think that's actually a good indication of congress intent of congress wanted to allow people to have this free choice of providers ability they knew how to reimplement that and i think the fact there is a specific carve out for family planning services wise is strong evidence that