Opinion ID: 901638
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Discriminatory Pricing

Text: [¶ 35.] Patients' second claim alleges a failure to charge discounted pricing similar to that provided for insured and Medicare/Medicaid patients. Patients pleaded: As alleged above, Defendant's conduct in charging Plaintiff[s] and the Class the highest and full, undiscounted and uncompensated cost for medical care and its charging the Plaintiff[s] and the Class a higher amount that its insured patients for the same medical services, despite its charitable, non-profit, tax-exempt status, is in violation of the South Dakota Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act because it is unfair, discriminatory, unconscionable, unethical, immoral, and oppressive. Such conduct is against public policy and has caused substantial economic injury to Plaintiff[s] and the Class. [¶ 36.] This claim fails to state a claim for two reasons. First, this pleading does not allege prohibited conduct under Act; i.e., deceptive practices, fraud, false pretenses, false promises or misrepresentations to conceal, suppress, or omit [14] material facts. Instead, this pleading simply alleges unfairness, claiming that differential pricing by charitable institutions is unfair, discriminatory, unconscionable, unethical, immoral, and oppressive. This type of allegation does not fall within the deceptive practices prohibited by the Act. [¶ 37.] Second, even if we were to assume that this pleading could state a deceptive pricing claim under the Act, it is an attempt to claim that the Hospitals' charitable tax exempt status, under 26 USC § 501(c)(3) and other state tax exemptions, imposes a duty to charge the discounted rates that insured and Medicare/Medicaid patients receive. However, this is the very claim that Patients now disavow. It is also a claim that has been rejected by virtually every court that has considered the issue. [15] Therefore, the circuit courts properly dismissed this type of allegation.