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 Massachusetts

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 symbol In July of 2010, the Massachusetts legislature passed Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111, § 121B, which states that “the department [of public health] shall promulgate regulations authorizing [EPT]…” In August of 2011, the Department of Public Health promulgated such regulations, which state “a registered physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or nurse midwife may provide expedited partner therapy (EPT) for the treatment of chlamydia infection…” 105 CMR 700.003(J)
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 In 2003, the Board of Registration in Medicine issued a policy on internet prescriptions, providing that “to satisfy the requirement that a prescription be issued by a practitioner in the usual course of his professional practice, there must be a physician-patient relationship that is for the purpose of maintaining the patient’s well-being and the physician must conform to certain minimum norms and standards for the care of patients, such as taking an adequate medical history and conducting an appropriate physical and/or mental status examination and recording the results.” It concluded that issuance of a prescription “by any means, including the internet,…that does not meet these requirements is therefore unlawful.” Note that the Board did not clarify, in citing a statutory provision on prescriptions for controlled substances, whether its position on issuing prescriptions without an exam also applies to the issuance of non-controlled substances.
 
IV. Laws that incorporate via reference guidelines as acceptable practices (including EPT) (Explanation)

V. Prescription requirements (Explanation) minus symbol Dispensing means “the physical act of delivery a drug…to an ultimate user.” 247 Mass. Code Regs. 2.00
VI. Assessment of EPT’s legal status with brief comments (Explanation) potentially allowable EPT is permissible.

Department of Public Health regulations authorize EPT for the treatment of chlamydia.

Status as of January 11, 2007

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