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 - North Dakota

permissible EPT is permissible.

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 “A practitioner who diagnoses a sexually transmitted disease…may prescribe or dispense, and a pharmacist may dispense, prescription antibiotic drugs to that patient’s sexual partner or partners, without there having been an examination of that patient’s sexual partner or partners.” ND Century Code § 61-04-04-01 (21)

plus sign Nothing in the requirements for dispensing controlled substances and specified drugs “may be construed to prohibit a practitioner from issuing a prescription or dispensing a controlled substance or specified drug in accordance with administrative rules adopted by a state agency authorizing expedited partner therapy in the management of a sexually transmitted disease." Effective date is August 1, 2009
ND Century Code §19-02.1-15.1 (4d)

II. Specific judicial decisions concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) minus symbol Court upheld revocation of physician’s license for prescribing over Internet without prior examination or physician-patient relationship. Jones v. ND State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 691 N.W.2d 251 (N.D. 2005).
III. Specific administrative opinions by the Attorney General or medical or pharmacy boards concerning EPT (or like practices) (Explanation) minus symbol In an opinion focused on durable powers of attorney, the N.D. Attorney General stated that “North Dakota has many laws which limit a person’s access to desired medical treatment. Certain drugs or medicines are not available without an authorized practitioner's prescription. N.D.C.C. § 19-02.1-15(1).” Id. at *8.
1997 Op. Att’y Gen. N.D. L-141.
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 label must bear patient’s name unless physician indicates otherwise. N.D. Cent. Code § 19-02.1-14.1.
VII. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation)

permissible EPT is permissible.

Statutory authority expressly authorizes EPT.

 

Status as of July 30, 2009
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: July 30, 2009
Page last reviewed: July 30, 2009

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