Legal Status of EPT in South Carolina
EPT is permissible.
| I. Statutes/regs on health care providers’ authority to prescribe for STDs to a patient’s partner(s) w/out prior evaluation (Explanation) |  “[…] a licensee may prescribe for a patient whom the licensee has not personally examined under certain circumstances including, but not limited to, writing admission orders for a newly hospitalized patient, prescribing for a patient of another licensee for whom the prescriber is taking call, prescribing for a patient examined by a licensed advanced practice registered nurse, a physician assistant, or other physician extender authorized by law and supervised by the physician, continuing medication on a short-term basis for a new patient before the patient’s first appointment, or prescribing for a patient for whom the licensee has established a physician-patient relationship solely via telemedicine so long as the licensee complies with Section 40-47-37 of this act.” S.C. Code Ann. § 40-47-113(B) (emphasis added) |
|---|---|
| II. Specific judicial decisions concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) |  Revocation of physician’s license upheld based on Board’s finding (among other charges) that physician wrote prescriptions outside of physician-patient relationship. Gale v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 320 S.E.2d 35 (S.C. Ct. App. 1984).* |
| III. Specific administrative opinions by the Attorney General or medical or pharmacy boards concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) | “The Board’s position is that this provision contemplates situations other than the specifically identified circumstances in which a licensee may prescribe for a patient whom the licensee has not personally examined.
[…] the Board issues this Position Statement to inform its licensees that it interprets S.C. Code Ann. § 40-47-113(B) to allow for the use of EPT. More specifically, the Board concludes that this provision allows licensees to prescribe for the sexual partners of patients diagnosed with chlamydia and gonorrhea, in accordance with CDC guidelines in effect at the time of treatment, without establishing a licensee-patient relationship as otherwise required by S.C. Code Ann. § 40-47-113(A). The Board does not view such prescribing as unprofessional conduct.” South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners Position Statement on the Use of Expedited Partner Therapypdf iconexternal icon |
| IV. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT) (Explanation) | Regulations incorporated by reference include but are not limited to: (1) APHA’s CCD Manual, most current edition; (2) AAP’s “Red Book,” most current edition; and (3) when necessary, the health department shall adopt other accepted national public health recommendations such as CDC guidelines, or make other policies as needed. S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-20 |
| V. Prescription requirements (Explanation) | Prescription drug order requires full name and address of patient. S.C. Code Ann. § 40-43-86(E)(1). However, prescription label need not bear patient’s name unless the prescription order does so. S.C. Code Ann. § 39-23-50(b)(2).*
|
| VI. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation) | EPT is permissible. The South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners issued a policy statement to clarify that it interprets S.C. Code Ann. § 40-47-113(B) to allow for the use of EPT by physicians for the treatment of chlamydia and gonorrhea. |
|
* This legal authority predates the effective date of the state’s policy statement that authorizes EPT. Status as of February 1, 2021 |
|
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 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/.