Sexually Transmitted Diseases  >  Expedited Partner Therapy  >  Legal Status  >  Explanation

Legal Status of EPT - Explanation

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.

Sections I - VII categorize key legal provisions implicating EPT as follows:

1. Existing statutes/regulations that specifically address the ability of authorized health care providers to provide a prescription for a patient’s partner(s) without prior evaluation for certain STDs. Section I includes statutory or regulatory provisions that specifically address whether a health care provider may provide a prescription for a patient’s partner without a prior evaluation or relationship with the partner. While these provisions may be limited in their application, they may effectually either authorize or prohibit EPT in specific circumstances. For example, a few states feature statutes or regulations that directly authorize some health care professionals to conduct EPT. These laws typically specify the STDs for which EPT is authorized as well as the health care professionals who are authorized to conduct EPT.
   
   
2. Specific judicial decisions concerning EPT (or like practices). Section II includes judicial decisions (case law) that implicate the legality of EPT or “like practices” (practices that are legally similar to EPT). Case law decisions are legally binding in their jurisdictions and set legal precedent for future decisions.
   
   
3. Specific administrative opinions by the Attorney General or medical or pharmacy boards concerning EPT (or like practices). Section III includes publicly-available decisions by state administrative bodies that discuss the legality of EPT or like practices. These decisions can include opinions of the state Attorney General, actions by medical disciplinary boards, advisory decisions or resolutions of medical or pharmacy boards, or general policy guidelines. Attorney General opinions are only binding on the party who sought the opinion, but the opinion may indicate how EPT may be regarded in the future.
   
   
4. Legislative bills or prospective regulations concerning EPT (or like practices). Section IV includes recent legislative or regulatory actions that would authorize or prohibit EPT or like practices. Although these bills or regulations have not been passed into law, they provide a glimpse as to potential future legality of EPT.
   
   
5. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT). Section V includes legal provisions that allow public health or clinical practices to be incorporated by reference through specific guidelines. Even if the current legal status of EPT in a jurisdiction is unclear, EPT could become legally permissible if a designated published guideline, agency, or official adopted EPT as an acceptable treatment method. The contents of these guidelines are incorporated by reference, which means they have the force of law in that jurisdiction. Legalization of EPT may thus be furthered by consulting with the organization that publishes the guideline or the agency official to recognize EPT as an acceptable treatment method for specific STDs provided such recommendation does not conflict with other legal provisions. The following abbreviations are used in this column of the table:
   • “CDC STD Treatment Guidelines” refers to Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines published by CDC through its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (which explicitly supports the use of EPT for certain STDs and populations);
   • “APHA’s CCD Manual” refers to the Control of Communicable Diseases in Man published by the American Public Health Association; and
   • “AAP’s Red Book” refers to the Red Book: Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases published by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
   
   
6. Prescription requirements. Section VI includes statutory or regulatory provisions that relate to prescription drug laws (other than for controlled substances) in each jurisdiction to the extent they may impact EPT. This may include:
   
   1. laws that require prescription orders or labels to indicate identifying information about the person for whom the prescription is intended. If identifying information is not required, it may facilitate a physician writing a prescription for a patient to deliver to her partner without identifying the partner. While these laws do not necessarily implicate the legality of EPT, they affect how EPT may be implemented in practice. If patient-identifying information is required, a physician may not be legally permitted to provide a blank prescription or an “extra dose” for the patient to deliver to the partner. Instead, such a prescription may have to be made out in the partner’s name;
      
   2. laws that concern the pharmacists’ need to verify a physician-patient relationship or that an individual has been examined by a physician prior to dispensing pharmaceutical products; or
      
   3. laws that require a pharmacist to ensure that drugs are dispensed to an ultimate user of the prescription.
      
      

7. Assessment of the legal status of EPT. Section VII provides an assessment whether the various laws of the jurisdiction tend to support or reject the legality of EPT. One of three conclusions is indicated for each jurisdiction:

- EPT is permissible for certain practitioners and conditions;
- EPT is potentially allowable subject to additional actions or policies (this may include specific interpretations of inconsistent or amorphous provisions, supporting policies consistent with legal authorization, or incorporation by reference into treatment guidelines); or
- EPT is likely prohibited.

Each of these initial conclusions is followed by brief comments providing some justification for the assessment.