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) |
|
III. Specific administrative opinions by the Attorney General
or medical or pharmacy boards concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) |
The Attorney General addressed the role of a non-physician (a correctional
officer) to dispense prescriptions to a third-party (inmates). The AG concluded
that this is not permissible because (1) dispensing of prescriptions requires
specialized judgment, (2) an in loco parentis argument does not override
the medical training required to administer drugs, and (3) only medical
attendants may be delegated the task, as non-licensed practitioners, to
dispense prescription medicines directly to a third-party. 1977 Op. Att'y
Gen. Idaho 289. |
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) |
Supplying drugs to unqualified persons constitutes unprofessional
conduct. IDAPA
27.01.01 § 184 (08)
Prescription label must bear patient’s name. IDAPA
27.01.00 § 159
|
VII. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation) |
EPT is potentially allowable.
Although only authorized health care practitioners may dispense prescriptions,
there is no statutory language that precludes EPT or requires a physical
examination prior to issuing a prescription.
|
Status as of August 16, 2006 |