Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Legal Status of EPT in Colorado

permissibleEPT is permissible.

This is a table caption for compliance. Ignore it please.
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) plus signIt is the position of the Colorado Board of Medical Examiners that the public risk of untreated sexually transmitted infection is greater than the risk of complications from prescribing in this less than ideal setting. Colo. Med. Bd. of Exam’rs Policy No. 40-10 “Appropriateness of Treating Partners of Patients with Sexually Transmitted Infection” states, “There is compelling need for the partner to receive treatment in the form of prescription medications. Treating partners of patients with sexually transmitted infections is generally considered acceptable and desirable if the partner will not seek treatment from his or her primary healthcare provider.”

 

IV. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT) (Explanation)
V. Prescription requirements (Explanation) minus symbol Prescription label must include the name of the patient. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-42.5-121.

plus sign It is the position of the Colorado Pharmacy Board that the public risk of untreated sexually transmitted infection is greater than the risk of complications from dispensing in this less than ideal setting. Colo. State Bd. of Pharm. Policy No. 40-4 “Appropriateness of Labeling Prescriptions to Partners of Patients with Sexually Transmitted Infections”

 

VI. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation) permissibleEPT is permissible.

Unlike other jurisdictions, the issuance of a prescription does not require an advance physical examination of each patient. The Medical Board has expressly supported EPT and deems it an acceptable practice.

Status as of July 19, 2007

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 42 states: potentially allowable EPT is potentially allowable in 6 states: prohibited EPT is prohibited in 2 states:
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
EPT is permissible in the District of Columbia.
Alabama
Delaware
Kansas
New Jersey
Oklahoma
South Dakota
EPT is potentially allowable in Puerto Rico.
Kentucky
South Carolina

  

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/.

TOP