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 Idaho

EPT is permissibleEPT 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 If a prescriber makes a diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease in a patient, the prescriber may prescribe or dispense antibiotics to the infected patient’s named sexual partner or partners for treatment of the sexually transmitted disease as recommended by the most current centers for disease control and prevention (CDC) guidelines.” Idaho Code Ann. § 54-1733 (2012).
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 addressed the role of a non-physician (a correctional officer) to dispense prescriptions to a third-party (inmates). The AG concluded that this is not permissible because (1) dispensing of prescriptions requires specialized judgment, (2) an in loco parentis argument does not override the medical training required to administer drugs, and (3) only medical attendants may be delegated the task, as non-licensed practitioners, to dispense prescription medicines directly to a third-party. 1977 Op. Att’y Gen. Idaho 289.
IV. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT) (Explanation)
V. Prescription requirements (Explanation) minus symbol Supplying drugs to unqualified persons constitutes unprofessional conduct. Idaho Admin. Code r. 27.01.01.500

minus symbol Prescription label must bear patient’s name. Idaho Admin. Code r. 27.01.01.140

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

Statutory authority expressly authorizes EPT for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control.

Status as of July 1, 2012

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