Legal Status of EPT in North Dakota

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)	“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). (effective 1/1/2009) 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)	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)	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)	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)	EPT is permissible. Statutory authority expressly authorizes EPT for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.
* This legal authority predates the effective date of the state’s law that authorizes EPT. Status as of January 1, 2009

Legend

supports the use of EPT

negatively affects the use of EPT

EPT is permissible

EPT is potentially allowable

EPT is prohibited

This is a table caption for compliance. Ignore it please.
EPT is permissible in 46 states:	EPT is potentially allowable in 4 states:	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/.