For comments, feedback and updates, please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Legal Status of EPT in Iowa
EPT is permissible.
|I. Statutes/regs on health care providers’ authority to prescribe for STDs to a patient’s partner(s) w/out prior evaluation (Explanation)|| Local board shall cause an examination of any person suspected of having an STD, and if found to have one, that person shall be subjected to treatment. Iowa Code Ann. § 139A.34.|
“This chapter does not prevent a practitioner from delegating the administration of a prescription drug to a nurse, intern or other qualified individual… under the practitioner's direction and supervision." Iowa Code § 155A.4(2)(c)
“A physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner who diagnoses a sexually transmitted chlamydia or gonorrhea infection in an individual patient may prescribe, dispense, furnish, or otherwise provide prescription oral antibiotic drugs to that patient's sexual partner or partners without examination of that patient's partner or partners.“ Iowa Code Ann. § 139A.41
|II. Specific judicial decisions concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation)|
|III. Specific administrative opinions by the Attorney General or medical or pharmacy boards concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation)|| The Attorney General reviewed Iowa Code § 155.30, which provides that “Any person who sells or offers for sale, gives away or administers to another person any prescription drug shall be deemed guilty of…a public offense,” but this shall not preclude “a licensed practitioner of medicine, dentistry, nursing…from such acts necessary in the ethical and legal performance of his profession.” 1977-78 Op. Att’y Gen. Iowa 889. A court found this provision vague and unworkable as applied to these practitioners. State v Webb, 156 N.W. 2d 299. The AG ultimately opined that the legislative intent of the statute ensures that unlicensed individuals cannot administer prescription drugs without a prescription. 156 N.W. 2d at 301.|
The AG addressed whether a physician had to be present while his or her agent (e.g., pharmacist) administered a prescription drug. The AG concluded “that supervision of an agent who is administering a prescription drug under the Iowa Pharmacy Practice Act does not necessarily require the physical presence of a physician. 2000 Iowa AG LEXIS 44.’ While the AG concluded that its opinion was consistent with proposed rules proffered by the Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners and the Board of Medical Examiners, it also noted that it is not attempting to determine who is medically qualified to administer prescription drugs or what constitutes adequate supervision among health care professionals.
|IV. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT) (Explanation)||Local boards of health can make and enforce such necessary laws not inconsistent with the law or with the rules of the state board. Iowa Code Ann. § 137.6.|
|V. Prescription requirements (Explanation)|
|VI. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation)|| EPT is permissible.|
Statutory authority expressly authorizes EPT for the treatment of chlamydia and gonorrhea.
|Status as of April 11, 2008|
|EPT is permissible in 35 states:||EPT is potentially allowable in 9 states:||EPT is prohibited in 6 states:|
EPT is permissible in the District of Columbia.
EPT is potentially allowable in Puerto Rico.
* Exception: EPT is permissible in Baltimore, Maryland