{"title":"极端（和近乎极端）局部性规则持续存在！为什么继续忽视现代医学并扭曲护理标准？","authors":"Marc D Ginsberg","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of the locality rule to define or modify the medical standard of care is inconsistent with modern medicine. Nevertheless, various states in the U.S. continue to adhere to a locality rule. This paper revisits this topic, about which I have previously written, by focusing on Idaho, Nebraska, Tennessee and Arkansas. The paper concludes by suggesting that locality rules should be eliminated in favor of a national standard of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":"38 2","pages":"196-228"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Ultra (And Nearly Ultra) Locality Rules Persist! Why Continue to Ignore Modern Medicine and Contort the Standard of Care?\",\"authors\":\"Marc D Ginsberg\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The use of the locality rule to define or modify the medical standard of care is inconsistent with modern medicine. Nevertheless, various states in the U.S. continue to adhere to a locality rule. This paper revisits this topic, about which I have previously written, by focusing on Idaho, Nebraska, Tennessee and Arkansas. The paper concludes by suggesting that locality rules should be eliminated in favor of a national standard of care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of law and health\",\"volume\":\"38 2\",\"pages\":\"196-228\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of law and health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of law and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Ultra (And Nearly Ultra) Locality Rules Persist! Why Continue to Ignore Modern Medicine and Contort the Standard of Care?
The use of the locality rule to define or modify the medical standard of care is inconsistent with modern medicine. Nevertheless, various states in the U.S. continue to adhere to a locality rule. This paper revisits this topic, about which I have previously written, by focusing on Idaho, Nebraska, Tennessee and Arkansas. The paper concludes by suggesting that locality rules should be eliminated in favor of a national standard of care.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
