Legal/Policy Toolkit for Adoption and 

Implementation of Expedited Partner Therapy

Prepared by:

Arizona State University 

Sandra Day O‟Connor College of Law

Public Health Law and Policy Program

In collaboration with:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Disclaimer- The information in this Toolkit does not represent the official legal positions of the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention/HHS, or state and local governments, and is not meant to provide specific legal 

advice. Users of this Toolkit should consult with their official state and local legal counsel for 

specific legal advice and guidance.

January 31, 2011
2

CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements 3

Funding 3

Disclaimer 3

I. Introduction 4

II. Sample State Legislative Language on Liability Issues 6

 Related to Expedited Partner Therapy

III. Discussion of Selected Issues Related to Practitioners’ Liability 10

for Harms to Partners Through Expedited Partner Therapy

IV. Frequently Asked Questions: Health Information Privacy for 16

Physicians, Pharmacists, and Other Healthcare Practitioners 

Concerning Expedited Partner Therapy

V. Considerations for Drafting and Implementing Legislation 23

and Regulations Concerning Expedited Partner Therapy

Appendix A: Additional considerations to change the legality of, 27

 or to further support the implementation of, EPT

Appendix B: Additional considerations regarding implementing 28

EPT in jurisdictions 

Appendix C: General Guidance on Locating Selected Legal 29

Authority Sources
3

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge a number of contributors to the conception, research, 

development, and review of this Toolkit. The Toolkit was drafted by James G. Hodge, Jr., J.D.,

LL.M., Director, Public Health Law and Policy Program, Lincoln Professor of Health Law and 

Ethics, Arizona State University (ASU), Jalayne J. Arias, J.D., Fellow, Public Health Law and 

Policy Program, ASU, and Lainie Rutkow, J.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., Assistant Professor, Health 

Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in collaboration with 

colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Alexis Kaigler, M.P.P. and 

Nina Martinez, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention

(NCHHSTP), Division of STD Prevention, Anthony Moulton, Ph.D., and Lindsay Culp, J.D., 

M.P.H., Public Health Law Program.

Additional persons provided research assistance for the Toolkit, including Andrew Sorensen and 

Dan Orenstein, J.D. candidates, ASU, Sandra Day O‟Connor College of Law and Ryan Cramer, 

J.D., CDC, NCHHSTP, Division of STD Prevention. 

The authors also acknowledge the significant contributions to this Toolkit made by additional 

colleagues at the CDC, NCHHSTP, Division of STD Prevention.

In addition, the authors would like to extend appreciation to the participants of the consultation,

Legal and Policy Issues and Resources Related to Implementation of Expedited Partner Therapy 

(EPT), held on May 13, 2010, for their valuable input and contributions regarding potential 

issues and barriers in the implementation of EPT and identifying useful tools to facilitate legal 

implementation of EPT. Consultation participants included STD program directors and 

managers, legal experts, representatives from professional organizations, other partners key to 

EPT implementation, and CDC staff in NCHHSTP and the Public Health Law Program.

Funding

This document was prepared with support from the CDC‟s NCHHSTP, Division of STD

Prevention through cooperative agreement number 5U90PR000004-02.

Disclaimer

The information in this Toolkit does not represent the official legal positions of the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention/HHS, or state and local governments, and is not meant to provide specific

legal advice. Users of this Toolkit should consult with their official state and local

legal counsel for specific legal advice and guidance.
4

I. Introduction

Expedited partner therapy (EPT) is the clinical practice of treating the sex partners of patients 

diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease without clinical assessment of the partners. This is 

typically accomplished by clinicians providing prescriptions or medications to the patient to give 

to his/her sex partners. In August 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 

its Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2006, recommended EPT as an 

evidenced-based option to manage chlamydial infection and gonorrhea by treating index 

patients‟ sex partners to prevent reinfection and curtail further transmission. EPT is also 

recommended in the updated guidelines, Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 

2010. Since CDC‟s 2006 recommendation, other organizations have supported EPT, including

the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the Society for Adolescent 

Health and Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Congress of 

Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

In discussions of EPT, the legal status of the practice remained an area of uncertainty in many 

states. From 2005 to 2007, to assist state and local STD programs in their efforts to implement 

EPT as an additional partner services tool, CDC collaborated with the Centers for Law and the 

Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities (Center) on the first phase of an 

EPT law project to assess the legal framework concerning EPT across all 50 states and other 

jurisdictions (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico). The primary research objective was to 

conceptualize, frame, and identify legal provisions that impact a clinician‟s ability to provide a 

prescription for a patient‟s sex partner, without prior evaluation of that partner, for purposes of 

treating an STD (specifically chlamydia or gonorrhea). This project led to the (1) analysis of 

statutes, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative opinions concerning EPT; and (2) 

posting of these data on CDC‟s EPT website, which is updated monthly. The information 

presented on the website is not legal advice, nor is it a comprehensive analysis of all of the legal 

provisions that could implicate the legality of EPT in a given jurisdiction. 

The original analysis of state laws by the Center and CDC concluded that only 10 states 

expressly permitted EPT in 2006. Subsequent CDC analysis suggests that this number has 

increased to 27 states as of November 2010.

The purpose of the second phase of the EPT law project was to assist states that are interested in 

adopting laws supportive of EPT as well as to assist states that had adopted such laws with 

addressing barriers to their full implementation. Accordingly, the CDC engaged the Public 

Health Law and Policy Program at the Sandra Day O‟Connor College of Law, Arizona State 

University (ASU), to research and prepare legal and policy tools to assist states at various stages 

of EPT adoption and implementation.

On May 13, 2010, the CDC, in collaboration with ASU, convened a consultation of subjectmatter experts to identify, characterize, and assess the barriers to adoption and implementation of 

laws and policies that authorize the practice of EPT. A follow-up webinar on June 10, 2010 

provided an additional opportunity for discussion of these issues. Through these efforts, 

stakeholders identified and prioritized specific tools that would be helpful to inform 
5

policymakers and practitioners about key issues related to EPT authorization and 

implementation. 

This Toolkit is the principal outcome of the second phase of the EPT law project. It is intended 

as a resource for voluntary use by government officials at the state and local levels, their public 

and private sector partners, and others who are interested in adopting or facilitating the 

implementation of statutes or regulations that permit EPT in clinical practice. This Toolkit is not

designed to provide specific legal guidance or advice and does not represent the official legal

positions of federal, state, or local governments. The contents of the Toolkit should be 

discussed with the assistance of official state and local legal counsel.

This Toolkit includes the following four tools: (1) Sample State Legislative Language on

Liability Issues Related to Expedited Partner Therapy; (2) Discussion of Selected Issues

Related to Practitioners‟ Liability for Harms to Partners Through Expedited Partner Therapy;

(3) Frequently Asked Questions: Health Information Privacy for Physicians, Pharmacists, and

Other Healthcare Practitioners Concerning Expedited Partner Therapy; and (4) Considerations 

for Drafting and Implementing Legislation and Regulations Concerning Expedited Partner

Therapy.

This Toolkit is accessible at http://www.cdc.gov/std/ept. 

.
6

II. Sample State Legislative Language on Liability Issues

Related to Expedited Partner Therapy

Purpose

This tool is intended as a resource for voluntary use by government officials at the state and local 

levels, their public and private sector partners, and others who are interested in adopting or 

facilitating the implementation of statutes or regulations that permit expedited partner therapy 

(EPT) in clinical practice. The practice of EPT raises questions as to whether a healthcare 

practitioner may be liable for harms incurred by the sex partners of index patients. Thus, 

practitioners‟ liability concerns related to partner injuries may impede the practice of EPT in 

some jurisdictions. To address these concerns, several states have included specific language on 

liability in legislation that authorizes EPT. 

The Table of sample legislative language provides specific language from nine states that 

introduced or passed legislation, as of Sept. 24, 2010, which (1) authorizes EPT to treat sexually 

transmitted diseases, primarily chlamydia and/or gonorrhea; and (2) protects physicians or other 

healthcare practitioners from liability. The nine states reviewed below were selected following a 

review of all states‟ laws expressly authorizing EPT. Hypertext links provide ready access to 

specific legislative sources. A brief analysis of these provisions is also provided in the final 

column of the table. Further analysis of physician and other healthcare practitioners‟ liability is 

available in the corresponding tool, “Discussion of Selected Issues Related to Practitioners‟ 

Liability for Harms to Partners Through Expedited Partner Therapy,” on p.10.

State/Citation Adopted Legislative Language Commentary

Illinois, 410 ILL. COMP.

STAT. 325/6(e)(5) 

(2010)

“A health care professional prescribing, 

dispensing, furnishing, or otherwise 

providing in good faith without fee or 

compensation prescription antibiotics to 

partners under this subsection (e) and 

providing counseling and written materials 

as required by item (3) of this subsection (e) 

shall not be subject to civil or professional 

liability, except for willful or wanton 

misconduct. A health care professional shall 

not be subject to civil or professional 

liability for choosing not to provide 

expedited partner therapy.” 

Illinois law allows healthcare 

professionals to participate in EPT 

without being subject to liability, except

for acts that constitute willful or wanton 

misconduct, so long as the healthcare 

professional provides counseling and 

written materials to the index patient, 

including warnings of potential allergies,

side effects, and dangers to pregnant 

women who take the prescribed 

antibiotics. 
7

State/Citation Adopted Legislative Language Commentary

Illinois, 410 ILL.

COMP. STAT.

325/6(e)(6) (2010)

“A pharmacist or pharmacy shall not be 

subject to civil or professional liability 

for choosing not to fill a prescription 

that would cause the pharmacist or 

pharmacy to violate any provision of the 

Pharmacy Practice Act, including the 

definition of „prescription‟ set forth in

subsection (e) of Section 3 of the Pharmacy 

Practice Act or the definition of „drug 

regimen review‟ set forth in subsection (y) 

of Section 3 of the Pharmacy Practice Act.”

While this language does not directly refer 

to EPT, it allows pharmacists in Illinois to 

opt out of participating in EPT without 

being subject to liability. 

Maine, 22 ME. REV.

STAT. ANN. tit. 22, § 

1242(3) (2010)

“A health care professional who provides 

expedited partner therapy in good faith 

without fee or compensation under this 

section and provides counseling and 

written materials as required in subsection 

1 is not subject to civil or professional 

liability in connection with the provision 

of the therapy, counseling and materials, 

except in the case of willful and wanton 

misconduct. A health care professional is 

not subject to civil or professional liability 

for choosing not to provide expedited 

partner therapy.”

Maine‟s provision largely resembles 

Illinois‟s provision. This statutory 

provision offers a clear legislative 

statement about the limits of liability for 

healthcare professionals, except for acts 

that constitute willful or wanton 

misconduct. 

Missouri, S.B. 982, 

95th Gen. Assem., 2nd 

Reg. Sess., (Mo. 2010)

“Any licensed physician may, but shall not 

be required to, utilize expedited partner 

therapy for the management of the partners 

of persons with chlamydia or gonorrhea...

Any licensed physician utilizing expedited 

partner therapy for the management of 

partners of persons with chlamydia or 

gonorrhea under this section shall have 

immunity from any civil liability that 

may otherwise result by reason of such 

actions, unless such physician acts 

negligently, recklessly, in bad faith, or 

with malicious purpose.”

Missouri law explicitly states that 

physicians are not required to use EPT. 

The liability provision explicitly applies

only to physicians, thus offering no direct 

protection to other healthcare practitioners. 

Even so, Missouri‟s legislative language 

offers questionable liability protections for 

physicians since it exempts physicians‟ 

acts of “negligence,” as well as reckless or 

malicious acts. Since no physician is 

arguably liable for acts which do not 

constitute negligence, the substantive value 

of this language may be limited to direct 

claims from partners who may not be able 

to successfully sue a physician for acts of 

negligence because of a lack of a doctorpatient relationship. 
8

State/Citation Adopted Legislative Language Commentary

New York, N.Y. PUB.

HEALTH LAW, Art. 23, 

tit.1, § 2312 (2010).

“A health care practitioner who reasonably 

and in good faith renders expedited 

partner therapy in accordance with this 

section and following the rules and 

regulations promulgated by the 

commissioner shall not be subject to civil 

or criminal liability or be deemed to have 

engaged in unprofessional conduct.”

New York law allows treatment of STDs 

by licensed physicians only (N.Y. PUB.

HEALTH LAW. Art. 23, tit.1.§2305 (2010)). 

Correspondingly, its legislative liability 

protections may extend solely to 

physicians. 

Rhode Island, R.I. 

Gen. Laws § 23-11-20 

(2010)

“Neither a licensed physician, licensed 

physician assistant or certified registered 

nurse practitioner who, in good faith, 

prescribes prescription drugs to a 

patient's sexual partner or partners for 

the treatment of a sexually transmitted 

chlamydia or gonorrhea infection in 

accordance with this section, nor the group 

or healthcare facility for which they work, 

shall be subject to civil or criminal 

liability and shall not be deemed to have 

engaged in unprofessional conduct.”

Rhode Island law provides broad liability 

protection. It (1) specifically identifies 

those healthcare practitioners who are 

entitled to protection; (2) uniquely 

extends liability protections to physicians‟ 

groups or healthcare facilities where EPT 

is practiced; and (3) does not specifically 

exempt practitioners‟ acts of willful, 

reckless, or wanton conduct (although 

other state liability laws may exempt 

these acts from liability protection). 

Utah, Utah Code Ann. 

§ 58-1-501.3 (2009)

“This section does not require a practitioner 

or a licensee under this chapter to prescribe 

or dispense a drug to treat a sexually 

transmitted disease for patient delivered 

expedited partner therapy... A practitioner 

or licensee under this chapter is not liable 

for a medical malpractice action if the use 

of expedited partner therapy is in 

compliance with this section, except for 

those acts which are grossly negligent or 

willful and wanton.”

Utah law explicitly states that a 

practitioner or a licensee may, but is not 

required to, use EPT. Its liability 

language specifically addresses claims in 

medical malpractice, thus potentially 

allowing claims against healthcare 

practitioners on other legal grounds (e.g., 

a claim against a practitioner may arise 

under breach of contract where the 

practitioner is contractually bound to 

provide specific services, but fails to do 

so). 

Wisconsin, WIS. STAT.

§ 448.035(4)(a) (2009)

“(a) Except as provided in par. (b), a 

physician, physician assistant, or certified 

advanced practice nurse prescriber is 

immune from civil liability for injury to 

or the death of a person who takes any 

antimicrobial drug if the antimicrobial 

drug is prescribed, dispensed, or 

furnished under this section and if 

expedited partner therapy is provided as 

specified under this section.

(b) The immunity under par. (a) does not 

extend to the donation, distribution, 

furnishing, or dispensing of an antimicrobial 

drug by a physician, physician assistant, or 

certified advanced practice nurse prescriber 

whose act or omission involves reckless, 

wanton, or intentional misconduct.”

Wisconsin law distinctly protects 

healthcare practitioners from liability 

resulting from “injury to or death of a 

person who takes any antimicrobial drug” 

when given through EPT. This offers 

considerable latitude to healthcare 

practitioners who prescribe differing 

treatments through EPT.
9

State/Citation Proposed Language Commentary

Connecticut, H.B. 

5450 § 1(e), 2010 Reg. 

Sess. (Conn. 2010)

“A prescribing practitioner who prescribes 

or dispenses oral antibiotic drugs to the 

sexual partner or partners of a patient 

diagnosed with an infection of chlamydia or 

gonorrhea, in accordance with the 

provisions of this subsection, shall not be 

deemed to have violated the prescribing 

practitioner's standard of care for such 

prescribing or dispensing.”

The proposed language identifies EPT as 

not in violation of the standard of care. 

While this provision does not directly 

address liability like several of the 

provisions above, it affirms that EPT 

practices are consistent with the standard 

of care. This may offer some liability 

protection for healthcare practitioners

against claims grounded in medical 

malpractice. Since the practice of EPT is 

consistent with the standard of care, 

liability claims cannot suggest a 

practitioner acted outside the standard in 

using EPT.

Nebraska, L.B. 992, 

101st Leg., 2nd Sess. 

(Neb. 2010)

“Any medical practitioner, any official 

health department, the Department of 

Health and Human Services, or any other 

person making such reports or notifications 

or providing such prescription drugs 

pursuant to section 1 of this act shall be 

immune from suit for slander or libel or 

breach of privileged communication

based on any statements contained in such 

reports and notifications or pursuant to 

provision of such prescription drugs.”

The proposed language protectsphysicians

from liability claims relating to breaches 

of confidentiality which may arise 

through EPT. 
10

III. Discussion of Select Issues Related to Practitioners’ Liability for 

Harms to Partners Through Expedited Partner Therapy

Purpose

This tool is intended as a resource for voluntary use by government officials at the state and local 

levels, their public and private sector partners, and others who are interested in facilitating the 

implementation of statutes or regulations that permit expedited partner therapy (EPT) in clinical 

practice. 

Users should view this tool as a guide to identifying and understanding healthcare liability and 

related legal issues that should be discussed with the assistance of official legal counsel. It is 

intended to provide an overview and explanation of pertinent legal issues, not an exhaustive 

analysis of all facets of legal issues underlying civil liability claims. 

Overview

In general, physicians or other healthcare practitioners may be liable for a patient‟s injuries or 

death resulting from medical care, including treatment through prescription drugs, under several 

legal theories. Practitioners‟ acts may, for example, (1) be inconsistent with the prevailing 

standard of care;1(2) fall outside specific contractual obligations; (3) contravene medical or 

pharmacy board guidance; or (4) constitute negligence or intentional acts which lead directly to 

harms to patients or others. In each of these examples, a healthcare practitioner may be held 

legally responsible for injuries or other harms to a patient. 

Potential liability of healthcare practitioners for their patients‟ resulting injuries is a constant 

concern in most healthcare settings. The practice of EPT raises questions as to whether a 

practitioner may be liable for harms incurred by the sex partners of index patients. Thus, 

practitioners‟ liability concerns related to partner injuries may impede the practice of EPT in 

some jurisdictions. However, our research found no reported cases in which courts have 

specifically addressed the liability of physicians, pharmacists, or other healthcare practitioners or 

entities for partner injuries through the practice of EPT. A few cases involve judicial review of a 

medical or pharmaceutical board‟s decision to revoke a practitioner‟s license based on unlawful 

prescription practices or other licensing violations, which has indirect implications for EPT.2

Claims of medical malpractice against physicians using EPT to treat chlamydia and gonorrhea 

are theoretically possible. However, since the risk of adverse reactions to the antibiotics used in 

EPT to treat these infections is minimal and can be managed with reasonable care and 

precautions, the threat of medical malpractice claims is comparably low. A lack of reported 

judicial decisions, however, does not mean that liability claims have not arisen or that they have 

not been settled out of court. 

Addressing potential liability claims underlying EPT requires jurisdiction-specific analyses due 

to variations in state and local laws in areas such as: (1) whether EPT is legally permissible;

3

(2) 

whether EPT constitutes an appropriate standard of care; (3) whether a doctor-patient 

relationship with the partner arises; and (4) the extent of liability protections4for practitioners. 

Without attempting to provide legal guidance for any specific jurisdiction, this document lays out 
11

essential legal and policy issues concerning potential liability claims arising through the practice 

of EPT, including

whether a professional relationship (e.g., physician-patient relationship) is established 

between a healthcare practitioner and their patient‟s sex partner through EPT; 

the extent of a healthcare practitioner‟s duty to a patient‟s partner outside a formal, 

professional relationship; 

whether EPT constitutes the standard of care; and

whether a healthcare practitioner owes a patient‟s partner a “duty to warn” 

regarding treatments offered via EPT.

Existence of a Professional Relationship Between Healthcare Practitioners and Sex 

Partners 

Liability claims based on medical malpractice typically arise between patients and practitioners

who share a recognized medical relationship.5From this formal relationship (e.g. a physicianpatient relationship) specific legal duties arise, such as the physician‟s duty to provide minimally 

competent care. Failure to provide such care due to negligence or other acts or omissions may 

lead to claims of medical malpractice. 

Traditionally a physician-patient relationship is established when an individual seeks a 

physician‟s medical expertise and assistance and the physician knowingly accepts the individual 

as a patient.6Some states clarify that a physician-patient relationship is established only where 

the physician personally examines the patient.7In several states, however, the mere acceptance 

or initial undertaking of patient treatment by a physician is sufficient to establish a legallyrecognized relationship from which liability may arise.8

Whether a practitioner may be liable for harms to the sex partner of a patient through EPT 

depends upon a court‟s determination of whether a formal relationship exists between the partner 

and the patient‟s healthcare practitioner. The relationship between a physician and the patient‟s 

partner via EPT is distinct because

the physician will generally not consult with, or examine, the partner (even after 

treatment is provided); and 

the partner has not sought out treatment from the physician even though the partner may 

be accepting treatment by taking antibiotics at the physician‟s instruction. 

Some states have specifically acknowledged a lack of a physician-patient relationship through 

legislation authorizing EPT.9 In other states, however, the act of providing treatment through 

EPT that will knowingly be used by an identified partner may be sufficient to establish a formal 

relationship. For example, a formal relationship may be established where a physician writes a 

prescription for the partner using the partner‟s name or identifying information. In these states, 

physicians and other healthcare practitioners may owe the partner some duty of care. Failure to 

fulfill this duty could result in a medical malpractice claim. 
12

Healthcare Practitioners’ Duties to a Partner Outside a Formal Relationship 

Even if there is no formal relationship with a patient‟s partner, a practitioner may also owe a 

special duty to non-patients when there is a foreseeable risk to these persons.10 For example, 

physicians have been found liable for failing to provide a patient with proper information to 

protect an intimate partner from contracting a communicable disease, including a sexually 

transmitted disease (STD).11 In some circumstances a physician may be liable where a partner 

contracts an STD from the physician‟s patient. 

Concerning EPT, a physician may be liable for failing to

properly instruct the patient on the risks of transmitting the disease to their partner; 

inform the patient how to prevent the transmission; or 

properly diagnose and treat the STD. 

A patient‟s partner may be at risk where a physician uses EPT and fails to properly instruct the 

patient to provide the partner with warnings or written materials related to the use of the 

prescribed or dispensed medications. States that have adopted legislation protecting healthcare 

practitioners from liability for EPT generally require practitioners to provide written materials 

for the partner.12 If a physician provides the patient with the requisite information,13 the 

practitioner will have likely fulfilled his or her legal duty to the partner. Furthermore, where a 

practitioner counsels a patient about the risks of transmitting an STD to the patient‟s partner, 

regardless of whether the practitioner elects to use EPT, the practitioner may be released from 

liability. In such cases, the patient is obligated to properly inform his or her partner or take steps 

to prevent transmission of the STD.14

Based on our review of relevant law, it appears unlikely that a physician will be found liable to a 

partner for failing to practice EPT (even though the patient and partner may ultimately be 

harmed through infection or reinfection of an STD). While multiple states have established EPT 

as a permissible or recommended practice, none have mandated it. In states where EPT is 

permitted, a physician may determine whether EPT is appropriate. Additionally, many states 

have issued guidance limiting the use of EPT to specific circumstances consistent with CDC 

recommendations. EPT, for example, is not currently recommended for men who have sex with 

men or women who have sex with women.

15

EPT as the Standard of Care 

Civil liability in a medical malpractice case is largely determined by the standard of care in the 

state in which a healthcare practitioner is licensed to practice. The standard of care is the 

minimum level of competency a healthcare practitioner must meet while providing medical 

services.16 What constitutes the standard of care varies across states and depends on numerous 

factors, including the legality of a medical practice. 

In general, states follow one of two forms of standard of care: (1) a standard established by the 

“custom of practice,” which requires a practitioner‟s actions to be within the custom of his or her 

practice area by jurisdiction and area of specialty;17 or (2) the “reasonable physician” standard 

which requires a physician‟s actions be reasonable regardless of custom.18 In each circumstance, 

expert testimony may be required to help determine what the custom of practice is or what is 

reasonable. 
13

The legality of EPT in a state may directly impact practitioners‟ liability. A healthcare 

practitioner practicing in a state where EPT is explicitly prohibited19 may be liable for harms 

caused as a result of the use of EPT through what is known as “negligence per se.” According to 

this legal theory, a practitioner‟s negligence may be established by his or her failure to meet 

specific legal duties set by law.20 Thus, if a practitioner offers EPT in a state that has prohibited 

it, liability may arise for resulting harms to patients or others, regardless of whether the 

practitioner‟s actions were reasonable.21 

In states where EPT is either legally permissible or potentially legally permissible, a healthcare 

practitioner may be liable for harm resulting from the clinical use of EPT if the practice is 

determined to be outside of the standard of care. Whether EPT is within the standard of care is 

determined based on (1) the customary practices in the state and (2) whether the practitioner‟s 

actions are viewed as reasonable based on expert testimony and jury findings.22 Evidence of 

whether EPT constitutes the standard of care may include guidance issued by CDC or state 

medical or pharmacy boards, as well as a state‟s adoption of EPT by statute or regulation.

23 Upon 

consideration of expert testimony and evidence of the standard of care, the jury will determine 

whether a practitioner‟s decision to use EPT was within the standard of care. If EPT is 

determined not to fall within the standard of care, the healthcare practitioner may be found liable 

for injuries resulting from treatment. 

Transposing a Practitioner’s Duty to Warn Partners to Drug Manufacturers 

A physician or pharmacist owes a special duty to patients when prescribing or dispensing 

prescription drugs24 to warn them of any potential complications, side-effects, or adverse 

reactions under what is known as the “learned intermediary doctrine.”25 This duty may 

potentially extend to partners of patients. State laws permitting EPT may require a 

treating physician to provide counseling and written information to the patient regarding 

potential risks of the prescribed treatment.26

However, if a drug manufacturer has reason to know that practitioners may not have the 

opportunity to reduce the risks of harm, the drug manufacturer may be required to 

provide adequate warnings directly to partners regarding potential side effects.27 A drug 

manufacturer, in effect, assumes the duty to warn of various harms through prescription 

label requirements or other communications.28

This transfer of liability from practitioners to manufacturers may potentially occur when a 

practitioner issues a “double dose” prescription through EPT to the patient for the patient to 

dispense equally to his or her partner. Where the manufacturer is aware of this practice, it likely 

has reason to know that the practitioner may not have an opportunity to warn the partner of 

potential risks through counseling. Conversely, the transfer of liability may not apply where a 

practitioner writes a specific prescription for the partner. In such a case, the practitioner may be 

found to have directly provided treatment to the partner, and thus has a duty to warn. 
14

Conclusion

A physician or other practitioner may be held liable for harms to partners through EPT 

depending on whether (1) a formal practitioner relationship is established; (2) the partner has a 

foreseeable risk outside such a relationship; (3) EPT is consistent with the standard of care; 

and/or (4) potential liability transfers to a drug manufacturer who has reason to know the 

practitioner is not positioned to reduce the risks of harm to the partner. State-specific legal 

analyses and consideration of the facts of individual cases are also important in determining 

whether liability for harms to partners may arise. 

Generally, healthcare practitioners who use EPT in their practice may be able to mitigate liability 

through the following practices: 

Review information regarding options for partner treatment when determining whether to 

implement EPT;

Provide the patient with sufficient information, including written materials, to provide to 

the partner regarding potential risks; and 

Consult with legal counsel as to the legality of EPT and the standard of care within the 

state. 

References

 

1 Burke v. Skaggs, 867 A.2d 213, 220-21 (D.C. 2005). 

2

See Carloni v. De Buono, 245 A.D.2d 970, 972, 667 N.Y.S.2d 109 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) (upholding revocation of 

physician‟s license for misconduct, including issuing a prescription without prior examination); Balmir v. De 

Buono, 237 A.D.2d 648, 649, 655 N.Y.S.2d 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) (upholding revocation of physician‟s license 

for refilling prescriptions that were inconsistent with physical finding where patients produced empty medication 

bottles); Jones v. N.D. State Bd. of Med. Examrs., 691 N.W.2d 251, 258 (N.D. 2005) (upholding revocation of 

physician‟s license for prescribing over the Internet without prior examination or physician-patient relationship); 

Reed v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 833 N.E.2d 814, 825 n.4 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (upholding revocation of physician‟s 

license when she prescribed extra doses of antibiotic to a patient who insisted on giving extra doses to her husband); 

Royder v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 2002 WL 31867888 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002) (upholding revocation of physician‟s 

license for failing to evaluate new patients before giving a prescription, and instead delegating to a physician 

assistant); State ex rel. Okla. Bd. of Med. Licensure and Supervision v. Litchfield, 103 P.3d 1111 (Okla. Civ. App. 

2004) (upholding suspension of physician‟s license and finding of misconduct when physician prescribed to patients 

without establishing a physician-patient relationship or prior examination); State v. Ray, 848 P.2d 46, 47 (Okla. Civ. 

App. 1992) (upholding disciplinary action against physician for filling prescription without establishing 

“doctor/patient relationship and/or examination”); Gale v. State Bd. of Med. Examrs, 282 S.C. 474, 320 S.E.2d 35 

(S.C. Ct. App. 1984) (upholding revocation of physician‟s license when physician wrote prescriptions outside of 

physician-patient relationship).

3 A review of the current status of state EPT laws is available at http://cdc.gov/std/ept. 

4

See 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. 325/6(e)(5) (2010); 22 ME. REV. STAT. ANN. c. 251, sub-c. 3, art. 5 § 1242 (2010); S.B. 

982, 95th Gen. Assem., 2nd Reg. Sess., (Mo. 2010); N.Y. PUB. HEALTH LAW, Art. 23, tit.1, § 2312 (2010); R.I. GEN.

LAWS § 23-11-20 (2010); UTAH CODE ANN. § 58-1-501.3 (2009); WIS. STAT. § 448.035(4)(a) (2009); H.B. 5450 §

1(e), 2010 Reg. Sess. (Ct. 2010); L.B. 992, 101st Leg., 2nd Sess. (Neb. 2010); see also the corresponding EPT Tool:

“Best Practices” Table: Sample State Legislative Language on Liability Issues Related to EPT for additional 

information on states that have adopted or have introduced liability protections within EPT legislation. 

5 Castillo v. Emergency Med. Assocs., P.A., 372 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 2004); Lyons v. Grether, 218 Va. 630, 239 

S.E.2d 103, 105 (Va. 1977) (noting that Virginia courts have found that a “physician's duty arises only upon the 

creation of a physician-patient relationship; that relationship springs from a consensual transaction, a contract, 

express or implied, general or special”) .
15

 

6 Oliver v. Brock, 342 So.2d 1 (Ala. 1976); see also St. John v. Pope, 901 S.W.2d 420 (Tex.1995) (although a 

physician does not need to directly deal with a patient to establish a relationship, a physician has the right to decline 

to treat a patient and thus decline the physician-patient relationship).

7

Irvin v. Smith, 31 P.3d 934, 941 (Kan. 2001).

8 Calhoun v. U.S., 539 F.Supp.2d 500 (D.Mass. 2008) (the “essence” of the physician-patient relationship 

commences when a physician undertakes to diagnose or treat a patient, including beginning to diagnose and 

treatment of a baby for post-birth complications); Gillespie v. Univ. of Chicago Hosps., 900 N.E.2d 737 (App. Ct. 

1st Dist. 2008) (acknowledging that a physician-patient relationship may exist even in the absence of any meetings 

between the physician and the patient, where the physician performs services for the patient). 

9

See UTAH CODE ANN. § 58-1-501.3(1)(b)(i) (“with whom a practitioner does not have a bonafide practitionerpatient relationship”). 

10 Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal.3d 425 (1976) (extending a physician‟s special relationship and duty 

of care with a patient to a third party when the physician had knowledge that the patient was going to harm the third 

party).

11

 DiMarco v. Lynch Homes-Chester County, Inc., 583 A.2d 422 (Pa. 1990); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 

324A. 

12 See 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. 325/6(e)(3) (requiring healthcare professionals to provide counseling and written 

materials). 

13 Often established by state laws or by state-issued guidance. See supra note 12. 

14 See Endres v. Endres, 968 A.2d 336, 338 (Vt. 2008); Duke v. Housen, 589 P.2d 334 (Wyo. 1979); De Vall v. 

Strunk, 96 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. Civ. App. 1936) (finding individuals liable for transmitting a communicable disease 

where the individual knew or should have known of the infection and risk of transmission). 

15 Centers for Disease Control, Legal Status of EPT – Summary Totals, http://www.cdc.gov/std/ept/legal/totals.htm

(last visited July 30, 2010) (“27 states feature one or more laws that may limit the ability of some healthcare 

practitioners to conduct EPT”).

16 McCarty v. Mladineo, 636 So.2d 377, 380 (Miss. 1994). 

17 Philip G. Peters, Jr., The Quiet Demise of Deference to Custom: Malpractice Law at the Millennium, 57 WASH. &

LEE L. REV. 163, 164-70 (2000).

18 Helling v. Carey, 519 P.2d 981, 983 (1974) (establishing the rule that a physician is liable where he fails to use 

reasonable care in treating a patient).

19 See e.g., FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. R. 64B8-9.014 (requires examination and diagnoses for a healthcare provider to 

provide treatment); MICH. COMP. LAWS § 333.17745 (a practitioner can only prescribe for the practitioner‟s own 

patient); OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 4730.21 (practitioner cannot provide treatment without prior examination). 

20 W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 220, 230 (5th ed. 1984).

21 Law v. Camp, 116 F.Supp.2d 295, 303 (D.Conn. 2000), aff’d 15 Fed.Appx. 24 (2nd Cir. 2001).

22 Supra note 1 at 219.

23 See Decker v. St. Mary's Hosp. 249 Ill.App.3d 802 (1993) (finding that various forms of evidence, including state 

statutes, are admissible to demonstrate the standard of care in medical malpractice cases against a hospital); Walski 

v. Tiesenga, 72 Ill.2d 249, 257 (1978).

24 The learned intermediary doctrine is a concept of products liability tort law that traditionally absolves the 

manufacturer from liability to the consumer as long as the manufacturer has provided adequate warning to the 

patient‟s physician. 

25 Sterling Drug v. Cornish, 370 F.2d 82, 85 (8th Cir. 1966). 

26 See supra note 13 (Illinois‟ EPT law requires healthcare professionals to provide index patients counseling and 

written materials, including warnings of potential allergies and side effects and potential dangers to pregnant women 

who take the prescribed antibiotics). 

27 Davis v. Wyeth Lab. Inc., 399 F.2d 121 (9th Cir. 1968) (manufacturer was liable and had a duty to warn potential 

patients of the dangers inherent in using the prescription drug, a polio vaccine, which was administered to the 

general public).

28 Id. at 131.
16

IV. Frequently Asked Questions About Health Information Privacy

for Physicians, Pharmacists, and Other Healthcare Practitioners Concerning 

Expedited Partner Therapy

Purpose

This tool is intended as a resource for voluntary use by healthcare practitioners, government 

officials at the state and local levels, their public and private sector partners, and others who are 

interested in facilitating the implementation of statutes or regulations that permit expedited 

partner therapy (EPT) in clinical practice and who have specific interest in legal issues related to 

health information privacy in that context. This tool contains information regarding concerns of 

physicians, pharmacists, and other healthcare practitioners in the public or private sectors related

to EPT patient and partner information privacy. The content focuses primarily on relevant federal

laws but emphasizes that practitioners, in all cases, should consult with their legal counsel to 

understand the implications of federal laws in more detail and to understand the implications of 

pertinent state privacy laws.

This tool has four sections: 1) general privacy concerns, 2) healthcare practitioner 

communications, 3) privacy issues specific to minors, and 4) prescription labeling requirements.

A. GENERAL PRIVACY CONCERNS

1. Do the protections of the HIPAA Privacy Rule1apply to the practice of EPT?

Yes. The HIPAA Privacy Rule applies to covered entities (and their business associates) that

electronically transmit individually identifiable health information as part of standard health 

transactions. Covered entities include healthcare practitioners, health plans, and healthcare 

clearinghouses, as well as any other persons or entities engaged in covered functions (i.e., those 

activities which assimilate the healthcare services that covered entities provide).

2

To the extent 

that EPT is part of the continuum of healthcare services, the HIPAA Privacy Rule applies to 

healthcare practitioners, including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and even public health 

workers, who treat patients or their sex partners through EPT.

3 Considerable additional privacy 

protections may be required by state laws. 

2. What types of health data are entitled to legal privacy protections?

The HIPAA Privacy Rule (and most state health information privacy laws) protects individually

identifiable health information retained or transmitted by physicians, pharmacists, and other 

healthcare practitioners. These data are known as “protected health information” (PHI) in the 

HIPAA Privacy Rule.4PHI includes any identifiable data that relates to the individual‟s past, 

present, or future physical or mental health condition, any information indicating that they have 

been treated, and payment information.5In addition, other information that could be used to 
17

easily identify the individual (e.g., name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, etc.) is

protected.6

3. Is a partner’s identifiable health information entitled to privacy protections?

Yes. A partner treated through EPT is entitled to the same privacy protections as an index patient. 

Most privacy laws do not distinguish between a patient‟s PHI and a sex partner‟s PHI. Generally, 

a healthcare practitioner or other covered entity must apply the same privacy standards to 

partners‟ identifiable data as they would apply to patients.

7

4. Under the HIPAA Privacy Rule am I legally required or permitted to gather and report 

information about partners receiving EPT?

In general, PHI may not be used or disclosed without written authorization from the individual, 

unless disclosure is expressly required or permitted under the HIPAA Privacy Rule.8If 

individual authorization is provided, use and disclosure of PHI must be consistent with the terms 

of the individual‟s written authorization agreement. Under the Privacy Rule, disclosures are 

required when 1) the individual requests access to his or her PHI; or 2) the federal Department of 

Health and Human Services requests PHI for narrowly defined purposes, including privacy 

investigations by the Department.

9

Disclosures without individual authorization are permitted under several circumstances, 

including 1) where a disclosure to others is requested by the individual for any purpose; 2) in 

connection with treatment, billing, and other operational activities; 3) when lawfully requested 

by law enforcement authorities; and 4) when requested by public health agencies.

10 Concerning 

EPT, for example, if a state reporting requirement mandates a healthcare practitioner to report 

the names of index patients and partners to state public health authorities, the HIPAA Privacy 

Rule allows this disclosure even without individual authorization in the interest of protecting the 

public‟s health. The Privacy Rule requires that healthcare practitioners disclose only the 

“minimum necessary” amount of identifiable data to accomplish the intended purpose of the 

disclosure.

11 A healthcare practitioner is entitled to rely on the determination of a public health 

agency as to what constitutes the minimum amount of information necessary for specific 

disclosures.

B. HEALTHCARE PRACTITIONER COMMUNICATIONS 

5. How do I protect myself from claims of breach of the duty of confidentiality concerning 

communications related to providing EPT for patients and their partner(s)?

Generally under state law, healthcare practitioners owe their patients a duty of confidentiality 

concerning the patients‟ identifiable health data. Under this legal duty, practitioners should not 

disclose their patients‟ health data to others without patient authorization. However, the duty of 

confidentiality is subject to several exceptions, including disclosures required under public health 

reporting laws or necessary disclosures to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. 

Consistent with the HIPAA Privacy Rule, courts have specifically recognized that prevention of 

the spread of a communicable disease may justify limited sharing of patient health information. 
18

Even so, written policies and procedures12 for disclosures of PHI without patient authorization13

should be maintained by healthcare practitioners, and the PHI disclosed should be limited to the 

minimum necessary to accomplish the objective underlying the disclosure.

14

6. Am I legally permitted or required to answer questions from a parent, spouse, 

significant other, or family member regarding an EPT prescription I wrote or 

dispensed?

Information regarding a patient, or a patient‟s sex partner, may be disclosed to a family member, 

relative, or personal friend of the patient or partner in limited circumstances.15 Disclosure can be 

made where 1) the patient or partner agrees in advance to the disclosure; 2) in specific cases

involving patients or partners who are minors (subject to each state‟s laws); or 3) where 

necessary to protect the health or safety of another person.

16 Consistent with the HIPAA Privacy 

Rule, a healthcare practitioner may use professional judgment to disclose information in the 

individual‟s best interest when the individual is not present and has not had an opportunity to 

agree to the disclosure.

17 Disclosures are limited to the PHI that is directly relevant to the outside 

person‟s involvement with the individual‟s healthcare,

18 or needed to properly notify an 

individual who is directly at risk of exposure to a communicable disease in accordance with

partner notification laws. 

7. What information may be reported to a payor or insurer for a patient and their 

partner(s) receiving EPT without violating health information privacy laws? 

Patient authorization is not required for the disclosure of PHI in connection with billing and 

healthcare operations under the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

19 The information required by a specific 

payor or insurer may vary, but any information required to obtain payment or reimbursement 

may be disclosed without specific patient authorization. State insurance and privacy laws may 

necessitate specific information be disclosed to a payor with additional protections. However, as 

noted above, reasonable efforts must be made to disclose only the minimum amount of 

identifiable information necessary to receive payment or reimbursement.20

8. Am I legally required to report specific uses of EPT to state or local public health 

agencies, including identifiable information about the patient and partner?

Yes, if state or local laws require the reporting of cases of the disease you are treating via EPT. 

State or local public health reporting requirements are not waived by the HIPAA Privacy Rule.21

While state and local laws vary, many require reporting of confirmed cases of specific 

communicable diseases (including chlamydia and gonorrhea). Some laws require reporting of 

suspected cases of these diseases, which in the context of EPT, may include partners of index 

patients receiving treatment through EPT.22 Some states require reporting of all instances of 

examination, prescription, or provision of treatment for these diseases, which would also apply to 

both the patient and partners.23 The specific information required to be reported varies by state. 
19

9. Can the patient legally demand that I keep private his or her information concerning 

the use of EPT? 

According to the HIPAA Privacy Rule, patients are permitted to request lawful restrictions of the 

disclosure of their identifiable health information.24 For example, an adult patient may ask her 

physician not to disclose information to her partner(s) due to privacy concerns. A practitioner

may agree to such requests, although the Privacy Rule does not require the practitioner to do 

so.

25 However, if the patient asks the physician not to disclose her diagnoses of an STD to local 

or state public health authorities (despite a reporting requirement under state or local law), the 

physician may not legally agree to this request because the protections of the Privacy Rule do not 

supersede state or local public health reporting requirements. 

C. PRIVACY ISSUES SPECIFIC TO MINORS26

10. As a healthcare practitioner am I required or permitted to share information about a 

minor who receives treatment through EPT with the partner’s parent or guardian? 

State law largely controls the treatment of minors and whether the disclosure of a minor‟s health 

information to a parent or guardian is permitted or required. In many contexts, a minor needs 

parental consent to most healthcare services, although most states have specific exceptions for 

certain services (as discussed below).

27 As a result, under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, parents or 

guardians are often allowed to access a minor‟s health data.

28 State laws vary as to who 

constitutes a minor for the purposes of healthcare services. While many states define a minor as

anyone under age eighteen,

29 some states have established higher or lower age thresholds.30

Some minors are considered “emancipated” when they serve in the military or become married, 

pregnant, or a parent. Healthcare practitioners are not generally permitted to share information 

about an emancipated minor with a parent or guardian,31 including information about treatment

received via EPT. Most states have laws allowing unemancipated minors to consent to and 

receive certain services without parental involvement, such as testing and treatment for sexually 

transmitted diseases (STDs).

32 In some cases, healthcare practitioners are not permitted to share 

information about a minor receiving treatment for an STD with a parent or guardian; other states 

allow healthcare practitioners to share information with the minor‟s parent at their discretion.33

Finally, if a healthcare practitioner reasonably believes that a minor is experiencing abuse or 

neglect due to knowledge acquired while providing treatment through EPT, the practitioner must 

report this to the appropriate government authority.34

11. Am I legally required to report information to law enforcement or other authorities 

about individuals treated through EPT which may involve a sexual relationship 

between an adult and a minor?

A healthcare practitioner may be required to report sexual relationships involving minors under 

certain circumstances. There is significant variation among states regarding the age at which a 

person can legally consent to sex.35 Additionally, many states‟ laws may refer to a combination 

of factors, such as the age difference between the minor and the adult or the actual ages of the 

minor and the adult, to determine whether a crime, commonly known as statutory rape, has 
20

occurred.36 A healthcare practitioner may be required to report the relationship to either law 

enforcement or other government authorities if the relationship constitutes child abuse, as 

defined by state law.37 For example, in all states, a healthcare practitioner who offers EPT must 

report the case to the proper authorities as child abuse if he/she knows the adult sex partner is 

legally responsible for the minor (e.g., a parent or guardian).

38 In addition, some states classify 

all instances of statutory rape as child abuse and require these cases to be reported; other states 

classify statutory rape as child abuse only for minors below a specified age.39

D. PRESCRIPTION LABELING REQUIREMENTS

12. As a healthcare practitioner, how do my state’s prescription labeling requirements 

relating to health information privacy impact my ability to practice EPT? 

Prescription labeling requirements related to health information privacy vary among states, with 

significant implications for practitioners seeking to practice EPT. Some states require 

prescription labels to contain patient identifying information, such as an individual‟s name and 

address.40 In these states, if a patient cannot provide, or chooses not to provide, identifying 

information about his or her partner, the healthcare practitioner will not have access to the legally 

required identifying information for the partner‟s prescription. Thus, the healthcare practitioner

would not be able to issue a legally valid prescription for the partner. States that require 

identifying information for prescription labels may prohibit practitioners from issuing blank 

prescriptions for partners. Other states, however, have amended or passed laws to enable 

practitioners to issue valid prescriptions for EPT without the partner‟s identifying information. 

Some states do not require identifying information to appear on prescription labels.41 In these 

states, healthcare practitioners may issue a blank prescription for a partner that complies with 

their state‟s requirements for prescription labeling and identifying information. 

13. Can I write a prescription for a partner (without the partner’s identifiable information) 

when the patient will not share any identifying information about his or her partner? 

A healthcare practitioner‟s ability to write a prescription for an unidentified partner depends 

greatly on the laws of the state. In many states, it is illegal for healthcare practitioners to 

prescribe medication for individuals they have not examined.42 Other states prohibit healthcare 

practitioners from prescribing medications for individuals if there is no practitioner/patient 

relationship.43 In these states, practitioners cannot write a prescription for an unidentified partner. 

Some states, however, have amended or passed laws to facilitate the practice of EPT by allowing 

a practitioner to write a prescription for a partner they have not examined44 or a partner with 

whom they have not established a practitioner/patient relationship.45 Among these states, some 

explicitly allow a prescription to be written for an unidentified partner for EPT purposes.46
21

14. As a pharmacist, can I dispense a prescription drug when the prescription was made 

out to an unnamed individual?

States vary in the extent to which they allow pharmacists to dispense a prescription drug when 

the prescription is made out to an unnamed person. Some states only allow pharmacists to

dispense a prescription drug to an “ultimate user”47 or an identified patient.48 In these states, a 

pharmacist is not allowed to dispense an additional dose of medication, intended for an unnamed 

partner, to a patient. The pharmacist may, however, dispense the additional dose directly to the 

unnamed partner. In addition, several states do not permit a pharmacist to dispense a prescription 

drug if the pharmacist believes that the prescription was written in the absence of a 

practitioner/patient relationship.49 In these states, a lack of identifying information may lead 

pharmacists to believe a practitioner/patient relationship does not exist; thus, they cannot legally 

dispense prescription medications. To facilitate the provision of EPT, some states have amended 

or passed laws to allow pharmacists to dispense drugs to an unnamed patient or “other individual 

entitled to receive the prescription drug.”50

For information on prescription requirements by state, see

www.cdc.gov/std/ept/legal/default.htm. 

References:

 

1 The HIPAA Privacy Rule is federal regulation issued by DHHS which seeks to protect individuals‟ health 

information privacy rights. Additional information can be found at 

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/index.html.

2

45 C.F.R. §§ 160.102 and 160.103.

3

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/privacysummary.pdf.

4

45 C.F.R. § 160.103.

5

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/privacysummary.pdf.

6

Id. 

7

45 C.F.R. § 160.103 (an “individual” is any person who is the subject of protected health information).

8

45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a).

9

45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a)(2).

10 http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/privacysummary.pdf.

11 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502(b) and 164.514(d).

12 45 C.F.R § 164.530(i).

13 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502(b) and 164.514(d).

14 Id. 

15 45 C.F.R. § 164.510 (b).

16 45 C.F.R. § 164.510 (b)(2).

17 Id. 

18 Id. (a covered entity may disclosure information according to inferences drawn from allowing a person to act on 

behalf of the individual, e.g. picking up a prescription). 

19 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.501, 164.502(a)(1)(ii), and 164.506.

20 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(b).

21 45 C.F.R. § 160.203(c).

22 E.g., N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10, § 2.10 (2010); Or. Admin. R. 333-018-0015 (2010).

23 E.g., La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1065 (2010).

24 45 C.F.R. § 164.522 (a)(1)(i).

25 Id. (However, where a covered entity agrees to the restriction, information may not be disclosed in violation of the 

agreement). 
22

 

26 Please note: All references to specific state statutes are provided as examples. These references are not intended to 

include information about all 50 states.

27 Heather Boonstra & Elizabeth Nash, Guttmacher Inst., Minors and the Right to Consent to Healthcare (2000), 

available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/4/gr030404.html (last visited August 20, 2010).

28 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(e)(3) (2010).

29 E.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-201 (2010); Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.4 (2010); Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-102 

(2010).

30 Legal Information Inst., Cornell Univ. Law Sch., Emancipation of minors – laws, available at 

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_emancipation (last visited Aug. 20, 2010).

31 Comm. on Bioethics, Am. Acad. of Pediatrics, Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric 

Practice, 95 Pediatrics 314, 315 (1995).

32 Heather Boonstra & Elizabeth Nash, Guttmacher Inst., Minors and the Right to Consent to Healthcare (2000), 

available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/4/gr030404.html (last visited August 20, 2010).

33 Id.

34 E.g., Nat‟l Ctr. for Youth Law, Minor Consent, Confidentiality, and Child Abuse Reporting in California (2006), 

available at 

http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/publications/minor_consent/Minor_Consent_Report_Download.p

df (Aug. 20, 2010).

35 Legal Information Inst., Cornell Univ. Law Sch., Emancipation of minors – laws, available at 

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_emancipation (last visited Aug. 20, 2010).

36 Sharon G. Elstein, Noy Davis, ABA Ctr. on Children & the Law, Sexual Relationships Between Adult Males and 

Young Teen Girls: Exploring the Legal and Social Responses (1997), available at 

http://new.abanet.org/child/PublicDocuments/statutory_rape.pdf (last visited Aug. 20, 2010).

37 Id.

38 Asaph Glosser, Karen Gardiner & Mike Fishman, Lewin Group, Statutory Rape: A Guide to State Laws and 

Reporting Requirements (2004), available at http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/3068.pdf (last visited 

August 20, 2010).

39 Id.

40 E.g., Alaska Admin. Code tit. 12, § 52.460 (2010); Fla. Stat. § 465.186 (2010); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 24:21-17 (2010); 

S.C. Code Ann. § 40-43-86 (2010).

41 E.g., Ala. Admin. Code r. 680-X-2.13 (2010); Ind. Code § 16-42-3-6 (2010); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-5404.

42 E.g., Ala. Admin. Code r. 540-X-9.11 (2010); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 64B8-9.014 (2010); 844 Ind. Admin. 

Code 5-4-1 (2010); 902 Ky. Admin. Regs. 2:080 (2010).

43 E.g., Okla. Stat. tit. 59 § 59-509(12) (2010).

44 E.g., Iowa Code § 139A.41 (2010); Md. Code Regs. 10.06.01.17-1 (2010); N.M. Code R. § 16.10.8.8 (2010); 

N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2312 (2010).

45 E.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. § 191.648 (2010).

46 E.g., Utah Code Ann. § 58-1-501.3 (2010).

47 E.g., Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-1626(k) (2010); 247 Mass. Code Regs. 2.00 (2010).

48 E.g., W. Va. Code § 16-4-24 (2010).

49 E.g., Fla. Stat. § 465.023 (2010); Tex. Occ. Code § 562.056 (2010).

50 E.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 315.010 (2010)
23

V. Considerations for Drafting and Implementing Legislation and 

Regulations Concerning Expedited Partner Therapy

Purpose

This tool is intended as a resource for voluntary use by government officials at the state and local 

levels, their public and private sector partners, and others who are interested in adopting or 

facilitating the implementation of statutes or regulations that permit expedited partner therapy 

(EPT) in clinical practice.

This tool consists of three flowcharts, each corresponding to the legal status of EPT within a 

jurisdiction. With the assistance of their legal counsel, users should determine in advance 

whether EPT is legally permissible, potentially allowable, or prohibited in their jurisdiction, and 

then consult the appropriate flowchart. 

Each flowchart presents a series of legal and policy considerations that may arise during the 

drafting and implementing of EPT-related statutes or regulations. These considerations should 

guide discussions between users and their legal counsel and may highlight potential issues of law 

and policy that may need to be addressed to adopt or implement EPT-related statutes or 

regulations. 

Following these flowcharts are a series of three appendices that users and their legal counsel may 

want to consider as part of their planning efforts. Appendix A identifies relevant questions in 

addition to those included in the flowchart that a public health practitioner may want to discuss 

with legal counsel. These issues for consideration may relate to changing the legality of EPT or 

supporting EPT implementation. Appendix B categorizes specific issues for consideration 

related to EPT implementation in five common areas from a legislative perspective. Appendix C

provides information for public health practitioners who want to enhance understanding of the 

legal authorities underlying various statutory and regulatory provisions related to EPT. A review 

of this flowchart and accompanying appendices may assist public health practitioners to better 

understand issues of law and policy related to EPT prior to seeking guidance from his or her 

legal counsel. 

Additional information on EPT and pertinent laws is accessible at http://www.cdc.gov/std/ept. 

Note: In this document “legal authority” refers to statutes, judicial decisions, and rules, 

regulations, and disciplinary opinions of health professional regulatory boards (such as state 

medical or pharmacy boards). Advisory opinions and position statements of health professional 

regulatory boards and state attorneys general may also be considered, although such opinions do 

not carry the same force of law as do statutes, regulations, or judicial decisions. 
24

Considerations for Drafting and Implementing Legislation and Regulations 

Concerning Expedited Partner Therapy

Users should discuss the contents of this tool with the assistance of official state and local legal counsel

and may find it useful to consult CDC’s website as a resource, which contains a comparative snapshot of legal

provisions concerning EPT. Appendix C provides additional sources that may be useful to consult along with

official legal counsel. 

EPT is Permissible

Given the current legal environment in your jurisdiction, is EPT permissible, potentially allowable, or prohibited?

Parameters of Practice Does legal authority restrict the extent to which health care practitioners can practice EPT by: Requiring information/ literature, or counseling that health care practitioners (e.g. physicians, nurses, public health workers) must provide to EPT patients and/ or their partners?

Limiting the medications that can be prescribed for EPT?

Limiting the diseases that can be treated through EPT?

Specifying which persons may or may not receive EPT (e.g., restrictions on providing treatment to minors or partners who are minors)? Additional legal and policy considerations (See Appendix B for specific considerations for these issues)

Licensure/Scope of Practice Determine whether laws specify who may practice EPT (e.g., physicians, nurses, public health workers).

Liability Determine whether liability protections exist for health care practitioners.

Financing/ Reimbursement Determine how EPT is financed and reimbursed. Medication Packaging Determine requirements regarding repackaging of medication from bulk to single doses.

Prescribing/ Dispensing Authority Determine whether laws establish the parameters through which health care practitioners can offer EPT.

Prescription Labeling Requirements Determine if identifying information of a patient’s sex partner is required on prescriptions or patient records.

Consider steps to further support implementation of EPT. (See Appendix A for suggested steps.)
25

Given the current legal environment in your jurisdiction, is EPT permissible, potentially allowable, or prohibited?

Examination/Consultation Requirements Does legal authority require health care practitioners to physically examine an individual before prescribing or dispensing a medication for a communicable disease (e.g. STD)? Vague Legal Provisions Are there specific provisions in the laws or regulations that need clarification to legalize EPT?

EPT is Potentially Allowable subject to additional actions or policies

Consider steps needed to change legality or further support implementation of EPT. (See Appendix A for suggested steps) Additional legal and policy considerations (See Appendix B for specific considerations for these issues) Licensure/Scope of Practice Determine whether laws specify who may practice EPT (e.g., physicians, nurses, public health workers).

Liability Determine whether liability protections exist for health care practitioners.Financing/ Reimbursement Determine how EPT is financed and reimbursed.

Pilot Testing Has the jurisdiction engaged in any pilot testing of an EPT program or granted another form of permission to temporarily legalize EPT?

Minor Necessary Changes Are there existing or proposed laws or regulations that would require only minor amendments to allow the practice of EPT? Analogous Legal Authority Does legal authority exist regulating conduct analogous to EPT, concerning the treatment of communicable diseases which may allow or prohibit EPT?

Medication Packaging Determine requirements regarding repackaging of medication from bulk to single doses.

Prescribing/ Dispensing Authority Determine whether laws establish the parameters through which health care practitioners can offer EPT.

Prescription Labeling Requirements Determine if identifying information of a patient’s sex partner is required on prescriptions or patient records.
26

Given the current legal environment in your jurisdiction, is EPT permissible, potentially allowable, or prohibited? EPT is Prohibited

Consider steps to advocate for changing legality of EPT. (See Appendix A for suggested steps.) When drafting legislation, consider issues noted in the “Permissible” and “Potentially Allowable” sections.

Pilot Testing Has the jurisdiction engaged in any pilot testing of an EPT program or granted another form of permission to temporarily legalize EPT?

Minor Necessary Changes Are there existing or proposed laws or regulations that would require only minor amendments to allow the practice of EPT? Analogous Legal Authority Does legal authority exist regulating conduct analogous to EPT, concerning the treatment of communicable diseases which may allow or prohibit EPT?
27

Appendix A: Additional considerations to change the legality of, or to further support the 

implementation of, EPT:

Have stakeholders and/or advocates been encouraged to work with legislators and other elected 

officials to draft and introduce legislation to make EPT legally permissible? 

Have state or local public health authorities been encouraged to work with state medical groups to 

draft resolutions supporting EPT or incorporate by reference CDC‟s STD guidelines or 

comparable national guidance recommending EPT?

Have regulations been developed to support implementation of laws relevant to EPT?

Are statements available from policymakers in support of legalizing EPT?

Has the Attorney General, or comparable official, issued an opinion about EPT‟s legality?

What are physician groups‟, medical boards‟, pharmacy boards‟, or licensing authorities‟ policies 

toward EPT? 

Has outreach to local professional organizations (e.g., AMA chapter, pharmacists‟ association) 

been attempted to educate them about the legality or implementation status of EPT?

Are resources available to disseminate information about permitted EPT practices to healthcare 

practitioners to raise their awareness?

Has information about liability or liability protections for healthcare practitioners who provide 

EPT or entities that allow or support EPT been disseminated to local practitioners or professional 

associations?

Has outreach to the state Medicaid office or state health quality improvement coalition* been 

attempted to discuss the possibility of including EPT as a reimbursable service?

Do written policy guidelines concerning EPT implementation need to be developed and 

distributed to key stakeholders?

Do model clinical/facility guidelines concerning EPT implementation need to be developed and 

distributed to key stakeholders?

*State health quality improvement coalition refers to a coalition of healthcare stakeholders such as physicians, 

hospitals, health plans, purchasers, consumers, academics, and government agencies, who work together to promote 

improvement in the quality of healthcare services and provide a forum to discuss cost-effective services.
28

Appendix B: Additional considerations regarding implementing EPT in jurisdictions where 

EPT is permissible or potentially allowable:

Licensure and Scope of Practice

o For healthcare practitioners (e.g., nurse practitioners) whose licensure requires a 

collaborative practice agreement with a physician, hospital, or other healthcare entity, can 

the provision of EPT be prohibited by the physician, hospital, or other entity?

o Are certain healthcare practitioners prohibited from distributing sample medications to 

patients?

Financing and Reimbursement

Do laws, regulations, or other policies 

o require health insurance plans to cover the costs of the antibiotics or dispensing fees for a 

patient‟s sex partner?

o prohibit dispensing drugs to a person who is not a registered patient in the clinic or 

medical practice?

o allow insurers to prohibit reimbursement for a partner‟s prescriptions? 

o prohibit treatment coverage of persons who are not enrolled in the health plan (including 

Medicaid)?

Liability 

o Are civil or criminal liability protections explicit in laws for public or private healthcare 

practitioners who practice EPT or entities that support or allow EPT?

o Do sovereign immunity protections (laws that protect government from being sued) apply 

to the actions of public health agents or healthcare practitioners/entities that contract with 

government to provide EPT?

o Do Good Samaritan laws (i.e., laws that protect individuals who volunteer to assist 

someone in need) apply to the actions of healthcare practitioners implementing EPT?

o Does the practice of EPT constitute the standard of care in the jurisdiction according to 

courts, medical boards, or other licensing authorities?

o Does a legally recognized relationship exist in the jurisdiction between the EPT 

practitioner and the patient‟s sex partner according to the terms of the jurisdiction‟s laws?

Prescribing and Dispensing Authority

o Are healthcare practitioners allowed to prescribe or dispense a double dose of a 

prescription medicine?

o Are healthcare practitioners allowed to prescribe or dispense a prescription without a 

name and/or address?

o Are public health workers allowed to issue prescriptions for EPT?

Medication Packaging (Only applicable if practitioner is writing the prescription and legally 

permitted to dispense medication)

o Is the repackaging of medication from bulk to single doses regimens prohibited?
29

Appendix C: General Guidance on Locating Selected Legal Authority Sources 

EPT-related legal authorities may reside in a variety of statutory and regulatory provisions. This table provides 

guidance on locating selected sources in general terms. Always consult with your official legal counsel to identify 

and interpret the sources and laws relevant to your jurisdiction. Users also may find it useful to consult CDC’s 

website, which contains a comparative snapshot of legal provisions.

Issue Locating Selected Legal Authority Sources

Licensure and Scope of 

Practice

Legal provisions limiting the practice of EPT may be fragmented 

and can be based on healthcare practitioner type, diseases that 

EPT should be used to treat, specific medications, patient 

information requirements, and/or other prohibitions. Both state 

statutes and regulatory boards governing the health professions 

generally give guidance on these matters. 

Liability See, “Discussion of Selected Issues Related to Practitioners‟

Liability for Harms to Partners Through Expedited Partner

Therapy,” p. 10

Prescribing Authority State medical boards, other professional board regulations, and 

state statutes generally regulate the authority of healthcare 

practitioners to prescribe medications. 

Dispensing Authority State pharmacy board regulations or state statutes generally 

regulate the conduct of pharmacists, including the authority to 

dispense. 

Physician dispensing will generally be regulated by state medical 

board regulations, though such conduct may be alternatively or 

concurrently regulated by a state pharmacy board or by statute. 

Medication Packaging State pharmacy board regulations or state statutes generally 

regulate the conduct of pharmacists, including requirements 

regarding medication packaging. 

Prescription Labeling 

Requirements

State pharmacy board regulations or state statutes generally 

regulate the conduct of pharmacists, including labeling 

requirements. 

FDA regulates the labeling and repackaging of drugs.