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 - Summary Totals

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) plus sign 40 states feature one or more laws that permit or may facilitate certain health care practitioners to practice EPT.

minus symbol 20 states feature one or more laws that may limit the ability of some health care practitioners to conduct EPT.

II. Specific judicial decisions concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) minus symbol 6 states feature one or more judicial decisions that disallow prescriptions to persons without a physical examination or physician-patient relationship.
III. Specific administrative opinions by the Attorney General or medical or pharmacy boards concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) plus sign 11 states feature an agency opinion that supports EPT or like practices.

minus symbol 13 states feature agency opinions that tend to prohibit EPT or like practices.

IV. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT) (Explanation) plus sign 10 states have incorporated via reference CDC’s STD Treatment Guidelines.

plus sign 14 states have incorporated via reference APHA’s CCD Manual.

plus sign 5 states have incorporated via reference the AAP Red Book.

plus sign 6 states have incorporated via reference other guidelines or recommendations.

V. Prescription requirements (Explanation) minus symbol 33 states feature laws that require some patient identifying information on the prescription order or label.

plus sign 16 states’ laws do not require patient identifying information on prescription order or label.

minus symbol 11 states have statutory provisions prohibiting pharmacists from dispensing medications to individuals who have not undergone a physical examination, failed to establish a physician-patient relationship, or who are not the ultimate user (i.e., a third-party) pursuant to a valid prescription.

VI. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation) permissible EPT is permissible in 43 states and the District of Columbia.
potentially allowable EPT is potentially allowable in 5 states and Puerto Rico.
prohibited EPT is likely prohibited in 2 states.
Status as of August 29, 2018

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 43 states: potentially allowable EPT is potentially allowable in 5 states: prohibited EPT is prohibited in 2 states:
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
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
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