Legal Status of EPT in Iowa

permissible EPT is permissible.

This is a table caption for compliance. Please ignore it.
I. Statutes/regs on health care providers’ authority to prescribe for STDs to a patient’s partner(s) w/out prior evaluation (Explanation) plus sign “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)
plus sign “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 (effective 7/1/2018)
minus symbol 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.
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) minus symbol 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.*
plus sign 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) plus sign 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. § 137.104.
V. Prescription requirements (Explanation)
VI. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation) permissible EPT is permissible.
Statutory authority expressly authorizes EPT for the treatment of chlamydia and gonorrhea.

*This legal authority predates the effective date of the state’s law that authorizes EPT.

Status as of July 1, 2008

Legend

plus sign supports the use of EPT

minus symbol negatively affects the use of EPT

permissible EPT is permissible

potentially allowable EPT is potentially allowable

prohibited EPT is prohibited

This is a table caption for compliance. Ignore it please.
permissible EPT is permissible in 46 states: potentially allowable EPT is potentially allowable in 4 states: prohibited EPT is prohibited in 0 states:
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
EPT is permissible in the District of Columbia.
EPT is permissible in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Alabama
Kansas
Oklahoma
South Dakota
EPT is potentially allowable in Puerto Rico and Guam.

 

Summary Totals

The information presented here is not legal advice, nor is it a comprehensive analysis of all the legal provisions that could implicate the legality of EPT in a given jurisdiction.  The data and assessment are intended to be used as a tool to assist state and local health departments as they determine locally appropriate ways to control STDs.

For comments, feedback and updates, please contact CDC-INFO: https://www.cdc.gov/cdc-info/.