Opinion ID: 1335117
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Uninsured Patients

Text: The second sentence of the Discount Statute provides: Any person making full payment for hospital services within seven days from receipt of a bill for such services shall be entitled to the same discount allowed to any insurer. S.C.Code Ann. § 38-71-120. Hospitals argue that the Discount Statute does not apply to uninsured Patients' claims because the second sentence of the statute must be read in conjunction with the first sentence, which is outdated and no longer applicable. We agree. The well-settled rule in South Carolina is that, where possible, all provisions of a statute must be given full force and effect. Nucor Steel v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 310 S.C. 539, 545, 426 S.E.2d 319, 323 (1992). However, the primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature, and in ascertaining the intent of the legislature, a court should not focus on any single section or provision but should consider the language of the statute as a whole. Mid-State Auto Auction of Lexington, Inc. v. Altman, 324 S.C. 65, 69, 476 S.E.2d 690, 692 (1996). We hold that the two sentences in the Discount Statute may not be read independently, but must be read in conjunction with one another in order to ascertain the legislative intent. Doing so leads to the interpretation that an uninsured Patient is entitled to the same discount afforded an insurer who qualifies for the discount under the first sentence of the Discount Statute. In other words, an uninsured Patient is entitled to the same discount that an insurer who contracts with a hospital to provide full hospital service and medical care service ... in the same manner as described in Chapters 13 and 14. However, because service contracts are no longer in existence and insurers do not contract in the same manner as Chapters 13 and 14 corporations, we hold that there is no same discount available to uninsured Patients. The second sentence of the statute is not meaningless, but rather, the statute as a whole is simply not relevant because the contracts described therein are not used in the current health care industry. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court erred in holding that the Discount Statute applied to uninsured Patients.