| I. Statutes/regs on health care providers’ authority
to prescribe for STDs to a patient’s partner(s) w/out prior evaluation (Explanation) |
|
| II. Specific judicial decisions concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) |
 Court upheld revocation of physician’s license for prescribing
over Internet without prior examination or physician-patient relationship.
Jones
v. ND State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 691 N.W.2d 251 (N.D. 2005). |
| III. Specific administrative opinions by the Attorney General
or medical or pharmacy boards concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) |
In an opinion focused on durable powers of attorney, the N.D. Attorney
General stated that “North Dakota has many laws which limit a person’s
access to desired medical treatment. Certain drugs or medicines are not
available without an authorized practitioner's prescription. N.D.C.C. § 19-02.1-15(1).” Id.
at *8.
1997 Op. Att’y Gen. N.D. L-141. |
| 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) |
|
| VI. Prescription requirements (Explanation) |
Prescription label must bear patient’s name unless physician
indicates otherwise. N.D.
Cent. Code § 19-02.1-14.1. |
| VII. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation) |
 EPT is likely prohibited.
The revocation of a physician’s license for failure to conduct
a physical exam prior to prescribing medications, coupled with the absence
of any exception via regulation or incorporation by reference, suggests
that EPT is likely prohibited.
|
| Status as of August 16, 2006 |
Exception:
EPT is permissible in Baltimore, Maryland.
supports the use of EPT
EPT
is permissible
EPT
is potentially allowable
