| I. Statutes/regs on health care providers’ authority
to prescribe for STDs to a patient’s partner(s) w/out prior evaluation (Explanation) |
 Unprofessional conduct includes “prescribing medications
based solely on a patient-supplied history that a physician licensed
in this state received by telephone, facsimile, or electronic format.” Alaska
Admin. Code tit. 12 § 40.967 (27).
|
| II. Specific judicial decisions concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) |
|
| III. Specific administrative opinions by the Attorney General
or medical or pharmacy boards concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) |
|
| IV. Legislative bills or prospective regulations concerning EPT
(or like practices) (Explanation) |
|
| V. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable
practices (including EPT) (Explanation) |
 Public health department may establish standards for the prevention,
control, or amelioration of conditions of public health importance. Alaska
Stat. § 18.15.355.
Incorporates:
APHA CCD Manual 16th Edition, 1995 (as revised) Alaska
Admin. Code tit. 7, § 27.010. |
| VI. Prescription requirements (Explanation) |
Information required for pharmacists to fill prescription includes
name, address of patient unless address readily available in patient record.
Alaska
Admin. Code tit. 12 § 52.460.
Labels for prescriptions dispensed by Advanced Nurse Practitioners
must include patient name and may include patient id # (if applicable).
Alaska
Admin. Code tit. 12 § 44.447. |
| VII. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation) |
 EPT
is potentially allowable.
Statutory language concerning unprofessional conduct applies mostly
to “telemedicine” examples. If current edition of the APHA
manual recommends EPT, it could become incorporated by reference. Alternatively,
the public health department could adopt EPT as a standard for treatment
of Chlamydia and gonorrhea. |
| Status as of August 16, 2006 |
Exception:
EPT is permissible in Baltimore, Maryland.
EPT
is permissible
EPT is
prohibited
