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 - Texas

potentially allowable EPT is potentially allowable.

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) minus symbol It is unprofessional conduct [pursuant to Tex. Occ. Code § 164.053] for a physician to initially prescribe any dangerous drugs or controlled substances without first establishing a proper physician-patient relationship. A proper relationship, at a minimum, requires:…(2) establishing a diagnosis through the use of accepted medical practices such as a patient history, mental status exam, physical examination and appropriate diagnostic and laboratory testing….” [Link to Medical Board Opinion]
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) minus symbol Prescription must bear patient’s name and address. Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 157.056, 563.052; see also § 164.054 (2)

minus symbol “A pharmacist may not dispense a prescription drug if the pharmacist knows or should have known that the prescription was issued…without a valid patient-practitioner relationship.”
Tex. Occ. Code ยง 562.056a

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

potentially allowable EPT is potentially allowable.

While the medical board conditions the issuance of prescriptions on a “proper physician-patient relationship, its analyses may be limited in two ways: (1) it applies only to “dangerous drugs” or “controlled substances,” (which does not likely include typical antibiotics used to treat diseases recommended for EPT; and (2) the statute cited requires that prescriptions should be given in a manner “consistent with public health.” This statutory provision suggests that EPT may be possible if consistent with protecting the public’s health. However, no national STD or communicable disease standards are incorporated by reference in the state via statute or regulation.

 

Status as of August 16, 2006
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: December 19, 2007
Page last reviewed: December 20, 2007

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