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 North Dakota

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 “A practitioner who diagnoses a sexually transmitted disease…may prescribe or dispense, and a pharmacist may dispense, prescription antibiotic drugs to that patient’s sexual partner or partners, without there having been an examination of that patient’s sexual partner or partners.” N.D. Admin. Code rr. 61-04-04-01 (21), 50-05-01-01, 54-05-03.1-10(8).

plus sign Nothing in the requirements for dispensing controlled substances and specified drugs “may be construed to prohibit a practitioner from issuing a prescription or dispensing a controlled substance or specified drug in accordance with administrative rules adopted by a state agency authorizing expedited partner therapy in the management of a sexually transmitted disease.” Effective date is August 1, 2009
ND Century Code §19-02.1-15.1 (4d)

II. Specific judicial decisions concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) minus symbol Court upheld revocation of physician’s license for prescribing over Internet without prior examination or physician-patient relationship. Jones v. ND State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 691 N.W.2d 251 (N.D. 2005).
III. Specific administrative opinions by the Attorney General or medical or pharmacy boards concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) minus symbol In an opinion focused on durable powers of attorney, the N.D. Attorney General stated that “North Dakota has many laws which limit a person’s access to desired medical treatment. Certain drugs or medicines are not available without an authorized practitioner’s prescription. N.D. Cent. Code § 19-02.1-15(1).” Id. at *8.
1997 Op. Att’y Gen. N.D. L-141.
IV. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT) (Explanation)
V. Prescription requirements (Explanation) minus symbol Prescription label must bear patient’s name unless physician indicates otherwise. N.D. Cent. Code § 19-02.1-14.1.
VI. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation) permissibleEPT is permissible.

Statutory authority expressly authorizes EPT for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.

Status as of January 1, 2009

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