Legal Status of EPT in Oklahoma
EPT is potentially allowable.
|I. Statutes/regs on health care providers’ authority to prescribe for STDs to a patient’s partner(s) w/out prior evaluation (Explanation)||
“Providers ordering appropriate medications for persons with laboratory-proven, sexually transmitted diseases” may provide medications to “persons who have been in contact with certain infectious diseases” without a face-to-face encounter. Okla. Admin. Code § 435:10-7-12.
Physicians prohibited from prescribing to a patient without sufficient examination or establishing physician/patient relationship. Okla. Stat. tit. 59 § 509(12)., Okla. Stat. tit. 59 § 637. See Okla. Admin. Code § 435:10-7-12 (“The physician/patient relationship shall include a medically appropriate, timely-scheduled, face-to-face encounter with the patient… except that the following providers are not subject to the face-to-face encounter: … (3) Providers ordering appropriate medications for persons with laboratory-proven, sexually diseases”)
It is unlawful for any person not a physician to treat anyone for an STD, unless that person is under direct control of a physician. Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 1-521.
|II. Specific judicial decisions concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation)||
Physician misconduct found when physician prescribed to patients without establishing physician-patient relationship or prior examination. State v. Litchfield, 103 P.3d 111 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004). State v. Ray, 848 P.2d 46 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992).
|III. Specific administrative opinions by the Attorney General or medical or pharmacy boards concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation)||
The Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision determined that “Unprofessional conduct includes “prescribing or administering a drug or treatment without sufficient examination and the establishment of a valid physician/ patient relationship” pursuant to Title 59 O.S. 509-12. Also, a “sufficient examination” and “establishment of a valid physician/patient relationship” can NOT take place without an initial face to face encounter with the patient. In other words, it requires at a minimum: . . .
|IV. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT) (Explanation)|
|V. Prescription requirements (Explanation)||
Prescription label must bear name of patient. 59 Okl. St § 353.20.1.
If the name of patient is stated in the prescription, the label must bear the patient’s name. Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 1-1409.
“The pharmacy or pharmacist shall not dispense a prescription drug if the pharmacist knows or should have known that the prescription was issued without a valid preexisting patient-practitioner relationship.” Okla. Admin. Code § 535:15-3-13(d)
|VI. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation)||
EPT is potentially allowable.
Administrative regulations authorize the practice of EPT. Other statutory authority, case law, medical board opinions, and administrative regulations pose potential legal barriers to the practice of EPT.
|Status as of December 3, 2013|
supports the use of EPT
negatively affects the use of EPT
EPT is permissible
EPT is potentially allowable
EPT is prohibited
|EPT is permissible in 41 states:||EPT is potentially allowable in 7 states:||EPT is prohibited in 2 states:|
EPT is permissible in the District of Columbia.
EPT is potentially allowable in Puerto Rico.
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/.
- Page last reviewed: December 19, 2016
- Page last updated: December 22, 2016
- Content source: