Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Legal Status of EPT in North Carolina

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)

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)

plus sign “It is the position of the North Carolina Medical Board that prescribing drugs for an individual whom the licensee has not met or personally examined may be suitable when that individual is the partner of a patient whom the licensee is treating for gonorrhea or chlamydia.” (November 2009)

minus symbol “It is up to the Pharmacist to determine the legitimacy of each prescription, which arrives in the Pharmacy. One important consideration is the Board’s Rule on prescription orders, 21 N.C. Admin. Code 46.1801(b). . . . The Rule specifically provides that a Pharmacist shall not fill or refill a prescription if the order was produced from a prescriber without a prior prescriber-patient relationship or without a physical examination.”

IV. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT) (Explanation)

plus sign Regulations incorporate:
APHA’s CCD Manual (as revised); any guidelines or recommendations published by CDC (as revised) shall supersede those contained in the CCD Manual. 10A N.C. Admin. Code 41A.0201.

plus sign For gonorrhea and Chlamydia, regulations incorporate recommendations contained in the U.S. Public Health Service STD Treatment Guidelines (as revised). 10A N.C. Admin. Code 41A.0204.

V. Prescription requirements (Explanation)

minus symbol Prescription label must bear patient name. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-134.1.

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

permissible EPT is permissible.

The Medical Board expressly supports EPT for the treatment of chlamydia and gonorrhea and deems it an appropriate practice, which is further supported by the incorporation of CDC Treatment Guidelines.

Status as of November 1, 2009

Legend

plus sign supports the use of EPT

minus symbol negatively affects the use of EPT

permissible EPT is permissible

potentially allowable EPT is potentially allowable

prohibited EPT is prohibited

permissible EPT is permissible in 41 states: potentially allowable EPT is potentially allowable in 7 states: prohibited EPT is prohibited in 2 states:
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
EPT is permissible in the District of Columbia.
Alabama
Delaware
Kansas
New Jersey
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Virginia
EPT is potentially allowable in Puerto Rico.
Kentucky
South Carolina

  

Summary Totals

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.  The data and assessment are intended to be used as a tool to assist state and local health departments as they determine locally appropriate ways to control STDs.

For comments, feedback and updates, please contact CDC-INFO: https://www.cdc.gov/cdc-info/.

TOP