For comments, feedback and updates, please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Legal Status of EPT in Nevada
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)|
|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)|
|IV. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT) (Explanation)|
Regulations incorporate by reference: (1) APHA’s CCD Manual; (2) AAP’s "1997 Red Book; (3) CDC STD Treatment Guidelines as of Sept. 1, 1989. Any revision to the above guidelines is effective 10 days after its revision unless the state health officer files an objection with the state board of health.
CDC STD Treatment Guidelines heralded as the “standard of care” for the treatment of STDs in Nevada.
All health care providers must follow Chlamydia and gonorrhea treatment guidelines in STD Treatment Guidelines, MMWR, 1989. Nev. Admin. Code §§ 441A.490, 441A.540.
|V. Prescription requirements (Explanation)|
Requires patient name on label of prescription. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 639.2353(2)(d)
|VI. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation)|
EPT is permissible.
Administrative regulations mandate adherence to the CDC STD Treatment Guidelines, as revised, for the treatment of chlamydia and gonorrhea. These regulations, plus the state health department’s use of CDC guidelines as standard of care, and lack of contrary statutory or regulatory provisions, suggest EPT is permissible.
|Status as of March 16, 2009|
|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