Legal Status of EPT in District of Columbia
EPT is potentially allowable
|I. Statutes/regs on health care providers’ authority to prescribe for STDs to a patient’s partner(s) w/out prior evaluation (Explanation)||
|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)|| District of Columbia Board of Medicine disciplinary order issued
7/31/2003: fined physician $2000 for prescribing without seeing the patient.
|IV. Legislative bills or prospective regulations concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation)||
|V. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT) (Explanation)|| Regulations incorporate by reference APHA’s CCD Manual, Ninth
Ed., 1960. Meeting requirements of the 1960 CCD manual is prima facie evidence
of good medical or public health practice.
D.C. Mun. Reg. tit. 22, § 202.8.
|VI. Prescription requirements (Explanation)|| Label for prescription drug must bear patient’s name. D.C. Mun. Reg. tit. 22, § 1912.2.
Pharmacists must keep record of patient name and address for every prescription filled. D.C. Mun. Reg. tit. 22, § 1913.4.
|VII. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation)|| EPT is potentially allowable
Incorporation by reference of APHA CCD Manual may authorize the use of EPT provided the jurisdiction recognizes current edition of the manual and the manual reflects existing CDC STD Treatment Guidelines.
|Status as of August 16, 2006|
This area depicts a map of the United States with clickable regions. The regions are also listed in the table below.
Exception: EPT is permissible in Baltimore, Maryland.