| I. Statutes/regs on health care providers’ authority
to prescribe for STDs to a patient’s partner(s) w/out prior evaluation (Explanation) |
 State and local health officers and their authorized representatives
may issue written orders for treatment only after laboratory test results
or direct observation of clinical signs or assessment of clinical data
by a physician confirm the individual has, or is likely to have, a STD.
Wash.
Admin. Code § 246-100-203.
|
| 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 Medical Commission “recognizes that it is a common practice
for health care practitioners to provide antibiotics for the partner(s)
without prior examination. While not ideal in terms of diagnosis and control
of Chlamydia and gonorrhea, the Medical Commission recognizes that this
is often the only reasonable way to access and treat the partner(s) and
impact the personal and public health risks of chlamydial and gonorrheal
infections.” MD2003-04
[Link to Commission opinion]
The Washington State Medical Ass’n House of Delegates passed
a Resolution concerning patient-delivered partner therapy for curable
STDs and recommended that “the provider should inform the patient
that it would be best to have all partners exposed during the previous
60 days come into a clinic for examination, testing and treatment.
However, if treatment is not otherwise assured, the patient should
be provided antibiotics for their partners.” |
| 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) |
Regulations authorize local health officers to incorporate by reference:
APHA’s CCD Manual, 17th edition, 2000, or other measures s/he deems
necessary based on his or her professional judgment, current standards
of practice and the best available medical and scientific information.
Wash.
Admin. Code 246-100-036.
Patients diagnosed with reportable STDs are monitored for quality
of services using CDC Treatment Guidelines as the “standard of
care.”
[Link to Dept of Health] |
| VI. Prescription requirements (Explanation) |
When practitioner dispenses drugs, prescription label must bear patient’s
name, although name and dosage of drug may be removed if physician determines
necessary. Wash.
Rev. Code § 69.41.050.
A health care entity may only administer, dispense, or deliver legend
drugs and controlled substances to patients who receive care within the
health care entity and in compliance with rules of the board. Nothing
in this subsection shall prohibit a practitioner, in carrying out his
or her licensed responsibilities within a health care entity, from dispensing
or delivering to a patient of the health care entity drugs for that patient's
personal use in an amount not to exceed seventy-two hours of usage.
Rev.
Code Wash. (ARCW) § 18.64.450(4) |
| VII. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation) |
 EPT is permissible.
Statutory laws do not require a physician-patient relationship that
would otherwise preclude EPT. The opinions of the Medical Commission
and Medical Ass’n House of Delegates clearly favor the use of EPT,
which is further supported by local health officers’ authority
to incorporate standards of practice (e.g., CDC STD Treatment Guidelines)
that may allow EPT for the treatment of particular diseases.
|
| Status as of August 16, 2006 |
Exception:
EPT is permissible in Baltimore, Maryland.
EPT
is potentially allowable
EPT is
prohibited
