Skip Navigation
 
Home | About CDC | Media Relations | A-Z Index | Contact Us
   
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
CDC en Español 
Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Legal Status of EPT - Summary Totals

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 15 states feature one or more laws that permit or may facilitate certain health care practitioners to practice EPT.

plus sign Maryland permits EPT in Baltimore on a pilot basis.

minus symbol 30 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 9 states feature an agency opinion that supports EPT or like practices.

minus symbol 16 states feature agency opinions that tend to prohibit EPT or like practices.

IV. Legislative bills or prospective regulations concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) plus sign 3 states feature proposed legislative bills to authorize EPT: Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri
V. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT) (Explanation) plus sign 9 states have incorporated via reference CDC’s STD Treatment Guidelines.

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

plus sign 4 states have incorporated via reference the AAP Red Book.

plus sign 4 states have incorporated via reference other guidelines or recommenda-tions.

VI. Prescription requirements (Explanation) minus symbol 38 states feature laws that require some patient identifying information on the prescription order or label.

plus sign 7 states’ laws do not require patient identifying information on prescription order or label.

minus symbol 13 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.

VII. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation)

permissible EPT is permissible in 15 states and Baltimore, Maryland.

potentially allowable EPT is potentially allowable in 24 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

prohibited EPT is likely prohibited in 11 states.

 

Status as of October 7, 2008
Legend:  
plus sign supports the use of EPT permissible EPT is permissible
minus symbol negatively affects the use of EPT potentially allowable EPT is potentially allowable
  prohibited EPT is prohibited

Please upgrade your Flash Player or enable JavaScript in order to view this page properly.
This area depicts a map of the United States with clickable regions. The regions are also listed in the table below.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Colombia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Summary Totals

Exception: EPT is permissible in Baltimore, Maryland.

Page last modified: October 6, 2008
Page last reviewed: October 6, 2008

Content Source: Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention