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 South Carolina

prohibitedEPT is prohibited.

This is a table caption for compliance. Ignore it please.
I. Statutes/regs on health care providers’ authority to prescribe for STDs to a patient’s partner(s) w/out prior evaluation (Explanation) minus symbol “It is unprofessional conduct for a [physician] to prescribe drugs to an individual without establishing a proper physician patient relationship. A proper relationship, at a minimum, requires that the physician make an informed medical judgment based on the circumstances of the situation and on [the physician’s] training and experience and that the [physician]: (1) Personally perform an appropriate history and physical examination, make a diagnosis, and formulate a therapeutic plan; (2) discuss with the patient the diagnosis and the evidence for it, and the risks and benefits of various treatment options; and (3) ensure the availability of the [physician] or coverage for the patient for appropriate follow up care.
C. Prescribing drugs to individuals the [physician] has never met based solely on answers to a set of questions is unprofessional.”
S.C. Code Ann. § 40-47-113
II. Specific judicial decisions concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) minus symbol 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)
IV. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT) (Explanation) plus sign 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) minus symbol 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).

minus symbol Pharmacists may compound medications for an individual patient based on the “existence of a pharmacist/patient/practitioner relationship and the presentation of a valid prescription….”
S.C. Code Ann. § 40-43-86(CC)(2)(b)

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

Statutory authority, case law, and administrative regulations require a physician to conduct a physical exam prior to prescribing any drugs. The physician and the dispensing pharmacist may not knowingly allow a third-party who was not the physician’s patient to procure a prescription drug. There is no express indication that the CDC STD Treatment Guidelines are incorporated by reference, although the incorporation by reference of the APHA’s CCD Guidelines and other “accepted national public health recommendations such as CDC guidelines” provides an opening to reconsider this assessment..

Status as of February 7, 2013

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