1. Establish an Employee Assistance Program that includes confidential substance abuse screening, education, treatment referral, and recovery support.
2. Develop a policy for dealing with substance abuse in the workplace: at a minimum, provide training for supervisors in recognizing and dealing with drug or alcohol problems and support treatment for and recovery from substance use disorders.
3. Offer employees health insurance that provides comprehensive benefits for substance abuse treatment, including a broad range of service options, such as therapy, medications, and recovery support.
4. Be sure that health plans require their physicians to screen patients confidentially for substance use problems.
5. Support drug-free workplace policies.
Showing posts with label drug testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drug testing. Show all posts
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Workplace Drug Testing Overview
Drug tests in the USA can be divided into two general groups, federally and non-federally regulated testing.
Federally regulated drug testing started when Ronald Reagan enacted executive order 12564, requiring all federal employees refrain from using illegal substances in specified DOT regulated occupations. Drug testing guidelines and processes, in these areas exclusively, are established and regulated (by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration or SAMHSA, formerly under the direction of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or NIDA) require that companies who use professional drivers, specified safety sensitive transportation and/or oil and gas related occupations, and certain federal employers, test them for the presence of certain drugs. These test classes were established decades ago, and include five specific drug groups. They do not account for current drug usage patterns. For example, SAMHSA / DOT tests exclude semi-synthetic opioids, such as oxycodone, oxymorphone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, etc., and other prescription medications that are widely abused in the United States
Non-federally regulated or General workplace drug testing allows for far more effective drug testing procedures. While SAMHSA / NIDA guidelines only allow laboratories to report quantitative results for the " NIDA-5 " / " SAMHSA-5 " for their official SAMHSA-approve tests, many drug testing laboratories and on-site tests offer a wider, " more appropriate " set of drug screens to better detect current drug use patterns. As noted above, these tests include synthetic pain killers such as Oxycodone (Oxycontin, Percocet), Oxymorphone, Hydrocodone (Vicodin), Hydromorphone. Some also include benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax, Klonopin, Restoril) and barbiturates in other drug panels (a "panel" is a predetermined subset of tests run). The confirmation test (usually GC/MS, or LC/MS/MS) can tell the difference between chemically similar drugs such as methamphetamine and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or ecstasy). In the absence of detectable amounts of methamphetamine in the sample, the lab wold report the sample as negative, or report it as positive if present.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Oral Fluid / Saliva Drug Test Proven Accurate - Again
A large-scale study of laboratory-based oral fluid drug testing results found that the technology is comparable to urine drug testing. Approximately 650,000 oral fluid laboratory test results analyzed were collected over a five-year period of time in the non-federally regulated workplace market.
The results of this expansive study, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Forensic Toxicologists.
www.drugfreenavigent.com
The results of this expansive study, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Forensic Toxicologists.
www.drugfreenavigent.com
Monday, September 8, 2008
Mines, Drug Testing, & Unions
Source: September 6, 2008, Charleston Gazzette
MSHA: Test coal miners for drugs and alcohol
The White House administration will propose a rule early next week to require drug testing of miners who work in "safety sensitive" jobs in the nation's coal and non-coal mines.
U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration ( MSHA ) officials are pushing for speedy approval of the rule, offering the mining community and the public a tight 30-day comment period - less than half the time provided for two other rules proposed by MSHA this year.
The proposed rule would replace existing standards for drugs and alcohol at metal and non-metal mines with an industry-wide rule that also covers coal operations.
It would designate certain substances - alcohol and a list of controlled substances - that could not be possessed on mine property or used while performing safety-sensitive job duties, unless they were being used according to a valid prescription.
Mine operators would be required to establish an alcohol- and drug-free program, including a written policy, employee education, supervisory training and drug testing for miners in safety-sensitive jobs and their supervisors. Safety-sensitive job duties are defined as "any type of work activity where a momentary lapse of critical concentration could result in an accident, injury or death."
Company policies also must include treatment referrals for miners who violate the policy. The proposed rule also would require those who violate the prohibitions to be removed from the performance of job-sensitive duties until they complete recommended treatment and their alcohol- and drug-free status is confirmed by testing.
"Mining under the best of circumstances can be dangerous," said MSHA chief Richard Stickler, "and the use of alcohol and illegal substances creates additional, unnecessary hazards in the workplace."
MSHA's Federal Register notice did not include any mention of a public hearing on the proposal.
Department of Labor spokesman David James said the agency anticipates receiving a request for a hearing and that MSHA "is preparing to do" such a hearing.
"There will likely be a notice for public hearing published sometime during the public comment period," James said.
Coal industry officials have long sought an MSHA rule to require drug testing of miners, but the United Mine Workers union has questioned the need for such testing and worried about the specifics of how companies would carry out such testing.
Kentucky adopted its own drug-testing program for miners in 2006, and Virginia passed similar rules in 2007. West Virginia has declined to adopt drug-testing requirements for coal miners.
In October 2005, MSHA announced that it was working on such a rule, but after a string of mine disasters in 2006 and 2007, the drug-testing proposal appeared to have been put on the back burner as the agency scrambled to enact numerous safety reforms mandated by Congress.
Then, in early June, MSHA officials submitted their proposed rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for its review. The OMB approved the proposal late last week, records show.
In its proposed rule notice, MSHA said
MSHA cited a study that showed
"Using alcohol and/or drugs can affect a miner's coordination and judgment significantly at a time when he or she needs to be alert, aware and capable of performing tasks where there is a substantial risk of injury to oneself or others," the MSHA notice said.
During a previous comment period, UMW officials questioned whether MSHA had shown the need for a nationwide drug-testing program.
MSHA responded, "Although a subsequent internal [Department of Labor] review of accident reports failed to reveal a significant number of cases where alcohol or drugs were determined to be causative factors, it did reveal a lack of consistency in whether and how alcohol and drug tests are performed and in the investigative process used to determine whether alcohol or drugs may have been factors.
"In fact, currently accident investigations do not routinely include an inquiry into the use of alcohol or drugs and this is a failure that the proposed rule intends to address," MSHA said.
MSHA estimated that the drug-testing rule would cost the mining industry $16 million during its first year and $13 million every year after that.
MSHA: Test coal miners for drugs and alcohol
The White House administration will propose a rule early next week to require drug testing of miners who work in "safety sensitive" jobs in the nation's coal and non-coal mines.
U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration ( MSHA ) officials are pushing for speedy approval of the rule, offering the mining community and the public a tight 30-day comment period - less than half the time provided for two other rules proposed by MSHA this year.
"An alcohol- and drug-free mine program as proposed in this rule will contribute to the prevention of such incidents and provide all miners, regardless of what state they work in and the size of the mine they work for, equal safety protection from working alongside miners under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs on the job,"MSHA said in a proposal scheduled to be published in Monday's Federal Register.
The proposed rule would replace existing standards for drugs and alcohol at metal and non-metal mines with an industry-wide rule that also covers coal operations.
It would designate certain substances - alcohol and a list of controlled substances - that could not be possessed on mine property or used while performing safety-sensitive job duties, unless they were being used according to a valid prescription.
Mine operators would be required to establish an alcohol- and drug-free program, including a written policy, employee education, supervisory training and drug testing for miners in safety-sensitive jobs and their supervisors. Safety-sensitive job duties are defined as "any type of work activity where a momentary lapse of critical concentration could result in an accident, injury or death."
Company policies also must include treatment referrals for miners who violate the policy. The proposed rule also would require those who violate the prohibitions to be removed from the performance of job-sensitive duties until they complete recommended treatment and their alcohol- and drug-free status is confirmed by testing.
"Mining under the best of circumstances can be dangerous," said MSHA chief Richard Stickler, "and the use of alcohol and illegal substances creates additional, unnecessary hazards in the workplace."
MSHA's Federal Register notice did not include any mention of a public hearing on the proposal.
Department of Labor spokesman David James said the agency anticipates receiving a request for a hearing and that MSHA "is preparing to do" such a hearing.
"There will likely be a notice for public hearing published sometime during the public comment period," James said.
Coal industry officials have long sought an MSHA rule to require drug testing of miners, but the United Mine Workers union has questioned the need for such testing and worried about the specifics of how companies would carry out such testing.
Kentucky adopted its own drug-testing program for miners in 2006, and Virginia passed similar rules in 2007. West Virginia has declined to adopt drug-testing requirements for coal miners.
In October 2005, MSHA announced that it was working on such a rule, but after a string of mine disasters in 2006 and 2007, the drug-testing proposal appeared to have been put on the back burner as the agency scrambled to enact numerous safety reforms mandated by Congress.
Then, in early June, MSHA officials submitted their proposed rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for its review. The OMB approved the proposal late last week, records show.
In its proposed rule notice, MSHA said
"a preliminary review of fatal and non-fatal mine accident records revealed a number of instances in which alcohol and drugs or drug paraphernalia were found or reported, or where the post-accident toxicology screen revealed the presence of alcohol or drugs."
MSHA cited a study that showed
more than 13 percent of full-time miners were heavy alcohol users and 7 percent admitted that they had used illicit drugs within the past month.
"Using alcohol and/or drugs can affect a miner's coordination and judgment significantly at a time when he or she needs to be alert, aware and capable of performing tasks where there is a substantial risk of injury to oneself or others," the MSHA notice said.
"Even prescription medications may affect a miner's perception and reaction time. Mining is a complicated and hazardous occupation, and a clear focus on the work at hand is a crucial component of mine safety."
During a previous comment period, UMW officials questioned whether MSHA had shown the need for a nationwide drug-testing program.
MSHA responded, "Although a subsequent internal [Department of Labor] review of accident reports failed to reveal a significant number of cases where alcohol or drugs were determined to be causative factors, it did reveal a lack of consistency in whether and how alcohol and drug tests are performed and in the investigative process used to determine whether alcohol or drugs may have been factors.
"In fact, currently accident investigations do not routinely include an inquiry into the use of alcohol or drugs and this is a failure that the proposed rule intends to address," MSHA said.
MSHA estimated that the drug-testing rule would cost the mining industry $16 million during its first year and $13 million every year after that.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Unions Oppose Safety & Random Drug Testing?
Some Unions just don't get it, preferring to spread misinformation and rely upon scare tactics vs. acting responsibly and in the best interests of safety.
1. Random drug testing is NOT unconstitutional, nor illegal in the United States
2. Teachers should be subject to random drug testing, just as should firefighters, police, and other individuals in occupations where drug abuse would create serious safety issues.
3. Random drug testing via observed speciment collection, has proven to be effective at both detection and deterrence.
(Source: ABC News, KITV.com)
Random Drug Test For Teachers Meets Opposition
Teachers Union Says Drug Test Unconstitutional
HONOLULU -- There are more problems with a plan to randomly drug test school teachers. The union that represents public school teachers now said it can't knowingly agree to a plan it believes is unconstitutional.
The Hawaii State Teachers Association sent a letter to the school board that revealed where the two sides were far apart. The two sides had agreed to have a drug testing plan in place at the end of June, but missed the deadline.
Those eager to begin the new school year said the start is being clouded by drug testing controversy."I hope there is some reasonable resolution to this. It just going to take away from education and that's a shame," principal Mike Haramo said.
"We are starting the school year and they are still talking about it. You just wonder how long it's going to go on for," parent Rikki Wells said.
Wells said he worries it's all about red tape and politics and not enough focus on the children.Dragging it on, going into the courts, the political fees, the arguing back and forth and the truth," Wells said.
The first day of class for most public schools is the end of July, and at some campuses, teachers are to report to work next week.
Others who get random drug tests frequently said the same should apply to teachers.
"I think everyone in the HSTA should be drug tested just for the safety of the children," a construction worker said. Gloria Chi thinks random testing a good idea, but she thinks taking classroom money to pay for it is bad. "BOE should be doing something for the kids for education but the government should really pay for it," Chi said.
And when pressed about what appears to be an about face for the teachers union...
"Random is what teachers agreed to. We agreed to random and reasonable suspicion, but when we got into procedures we found complications of constitutional issues," HSTA Executive Director Mike McCartney said.
McCartney said the latest proposal is unworkable. Both sides have appealed to the labor board to help resolve the conflict.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Prescription Pain Releiver Abuse up Nearly 40%
A review of the data shows that drug abuse rates among workers have been stagnant for past decade... drug abuse is NOT declining.
Any statement that workplace drug abuse is lower, would be unsupportable by the findings.
The data does potentially indicate that that drug abusers have learned to cheat urine-based drug tests. This being supported by research recently concluded by the U.S. Government General Accounting Office (GAO) noting that cheating urine-based testing is easily accomplished and virtually undetectable.
The report also neglects to point out the opiate detection rates continue to climb. .. particularly oxycodones have gone up nearly 40% in one year!
" Use of Methamphetamine Among U.S. Workers and Job Applicants Drops 22 Percent in 2007 and Cocaine Use Slows Dramatically, Reports Quest Diagnostics"
Findings from Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index® also show that overall drug positivity remains at record lows
MADISON, NJ, March 12, 2008 — The percentage of positive tests for methamphetamine among U.S. job applicants and workers in the general U.S. workforce dropped more than 22 percent between 2006 and 2007.
These findings, from the Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index®, reflect the reversal of an upward trend in use of the drug by more than 73 percent from 2002 to 2004. These data were released today by Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (NYSE: DGX), the nation's leading provider of employment-related drug testing services.
The report also shows that positive tests for cocaine in the general U.S. workforce were down 19 percent between 2006 and 2007 and that overall drug use, among workers subject to drug testing, remains at an all-time low.
Methamphetamine, the most commonly abused type of amphetamine, increased in production and trafficking during the 1990’s to become the most prevalent illegally manufactured synthetic drug in the United States. Analysis of the Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index, released semi-annually, suggests that efforts to reduce illicit, clandestine production of methamphetamine may be having an impact on workplace positive tests for the drug.
"The fact that America's workers are using cocaine and methamphetamine at some of the lowest levels in years is further evidence of the tremendous success that law enforcement is having at impacting the nation's illicit drug supply," said DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart. "DEA will continue its relentless assault on the drug supply to help keep these dangerous drugs out of our neighborhoods."
While the 2007 Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index shows that positive methamphetamine tests have decreased, it also indicates that the use of amphetamine in the general workforce has increased slightly, by about five percent. Testing for methamphetamine and amphetamine was conducted among employees and applicants in the U.S. workforce tested for the class of drugs called amphetamines.
"Although some may conclude that there is a reduced availability for methamphetamine, the fact that our data show an increase in amphetamines suggests that some workers might be replacing one stimulant drug for another in the larger drug class of amphetamines," said Barry Sample, Ph.D., Director of Science and Technology for Quest Diagnostics' Employer Solutions division.
Methamphetamine and amphetamine are both types of stimulants, which typically are used by individuals to increase alertness and relieve fatigue. Stimulants are also used for euphoric effects or to counteract the "down" feeling of tranquilizers or alcohol. Possible side effects of stimulants include increased heart and respiratory rates, elevated blood pressure, dilated pupils and decreased appetite. High doses may cause rapid or irregular heartbeat, loss of coordination or collapse. Indications of possible misuse may include excessive activity, talkativeness, irritability, argumentativeness or nervousness.
Cocaine Use Continues to Decline
The Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index shows that the percentage of positive tests for cocaine was down 19 percent among the U.S. general workforce since the first half of 2007 - the largest single-year drop since 1997. Positive tests for cocaine among the general workforce declined to 0.58 percent in 2007 from 0.72 percent in 2006.
Overall Drug Use Remains at All-Time Low
Additionally, drug use by employees remains at its lowest level since Quest Diagnostics began publishing the Drug Testing Index in 1988. Among the combined U.S. workforce, only 3.8 percent of the tests had positive results — the same level reported in 2006 — compared to a high of 13.6 percent in 1988. Further, among safety-sensitive federal workers only, the Drug Testing Index showed that drug use was at an all-time low of 1.8 percent of the tested work force.
The 2007 Drug Testing Index is a summary of results from 8.4 million workplace drug tests performed by Quest Diagnostics between January and December 2007. Results are based on tests that Quest Diagnostics performs for employers that conduct pre-employment, random or for-cause drug testing. For more information, see additional results below.
About the Drug Testing Index
The Drug Testing Index is published as a public service for government, media and industry and has been considered a benchmark for national trends since its inception in 1988. It examines positivity rates — the proportion of positive results for each drug to all such drug tests performed — among three major testing populations: federally mandated, safety-sensitive workers; the general workforce; and the combined U.S. workforce. Federally mandated, safety-sensitive workers include pilots, bus and truck drivers, and workers in nuclear power plants, for whom routine drug testing is mandated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
About Quest Diagnostics
Quest Diagnostics is the leading provider of diagnostic testing, information and services that patients and doctors need to make better healthcare decisions. The company offers the broadest access to diagnostic testing services through its national network of laboratories and patient service centers, and provides interpretive consultation through its extensive medical and scientific staff. Quest Diagnostics is a pioneer in developing innovative new diagnostic tests and advanced healthcare information technology solutions that help improve patient care. Additional company information is available at: www.questdiagnostics.com.
The statements in this press release which are not historical facts or information may be forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and outcomes to be materially different. Certain of these risks and uncertainties may include, but are not limited to, competitive environment, changes in government regulations, changing relationships with customers, payers, suppliers and strategic partners and other factors described in the Quest Diagnostics Incorporated 2005 Form 10‑K and subsequent SEC filings.
The Drug Testing Index © 2008 Quest Diagnostics Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Tables Follow
Positive Prevalence Rates for Amphetamine and Methamphetamine —
Percentage of All Tests for “Amphetamines“
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamine 0.40% 0.38% 0.44% 0.45% 0.41% Methamphetamine 0.14% 0.18% 0.28% 0.33% 0.32% Percent Difference - Amphetamine 5.3% -13.6% -2.2% 9.8% Percent Difference - Methamphetamine -22.2% -35.7% -15.2% 3.1%
Positivity Rates for Cocaine
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Cocaine 0.58% 0.72% 0.70% 0.72% 0.74% Percent Difference - Cocaine -19.4% 2.9% -2.8% -2.7%
Annual Positivity Rates
For Combined U.S. Workforce
(More than 8.4 million tests from January to December 2007)
Year Drug Positive Rate 1988 13.6% 1989 12.7% 1990 11.0% 1991 8.8% 1992 8.8% 1993 8.4% 1994 7.5% 1995 6.7% 1996 5.8% 1997 5.0% 1998 4.8% 1999 4.6% 2000 4.7% 2001 4.6% 2002 4.4% 2003 4.5% 2004 4.5% 2005 4.1% 2006 3.8% 2007 3.8%
Positivity Rates By Testing Category
Testing Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce 1.8% 2.0% 2.3% 2.3% 2.5% General U.S. Workforce 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.9% 5.0% Combined U.S. Workforce 3.8% 3.8% 4.1% 4.5% 4.5%
Positivity Rates By Testing Reason
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce
(More than 1.8 million tests from January to December 2007)
Testing Reason 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Follow-Up 2.8% 3.0% 3.1% 3.3% 3.4% For Cause 11.1% 12.5% 13.4% 14.1% 13.8% Periodic 0.75% 0.59% 0.76% 0.51% 0.75% Post-Accident 2.6% 2.7% 3.0% 2.9% 3.1% Pre-Employment 2.0% 2.3% 2.6% 2.7% 2.9% Random 1.5% 1.5% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% Returned to Duty 3.3% 3.2% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8%
Positivity Rates By Testing Reason
For General U.S. Workforce
(More than 6.6 million tests from January to December 2007)
Testing Reason 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Follow-Up 7.7% 7.4% 9.6% 9.9% 9.6% For Cause 19.2% 18.1% 28.3% 27.8% 28.2% Periodic 1.4% 1.9% 2.4% 1.9% 2.2% Post-Accident 5.8% 5.7% 5.8% 5.7% 5.7% Pre-Employment 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% Random 5.7% 5.5% 6.6% 7.1% 6.6% Returned to Duty 5.6% 5.8% 6.0% 5.5% 5.6%
Positivity Rates By Drug Category
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 1.8 million tests from January to December 2007)
Drug Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamines 0.25% 0.28% 0.35% 0.31% 0.29% Cocaine 0.44% 0.58% 0.60% 0.57% 0.59% Marijuana 0.88% 0.94% 1.10% 1.25% 1.34% Opiates 0.18% 0.17% 0.18% 0.17% 0.19% PCP 0.04% 0.03% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04%
Positivity Rates By Drug Category
For General U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 6.6 million tests from January to December 2007)
Drug Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamines 0.44% 0.42% 0.48% 0.52% 0.49% Barbiturates 0.24% 0.23% 0.25% 0.27% 0.29% Benzodiazepines 0.67% 0.62% 0.58% 0.58% 0.60% Cocaine 0.58% 0.72% 0.70% 0.72% 0.74% Marijuana 2.34% 2.38% 2.54% 2.88% 2.96% Methadone 0.23% 0.22% 0.23% 0.21% 0.20% Opiates 0.35% 0.32% 0.32% 0.32% 0.34% Oxycodones 0.88%1 0.64%2 0.56%3 -- -- PCP 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 0.03% Propoxyphene 0.58% 0.55% 0.57% 0.63% 0.67%
Positivity Rates By Drug Category
For Combined U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 8.4 million tests from January to December 2007)
Drug Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamines 0.40% 0.39% 0.46% 0.49% 0.45% Barbiturates 0.24% 0.23% 0.25% 0.27% 0.29% Benzodiazepines 0.67% 0.62% 0.58% 0.58% 0.60% Cocaine 0.55% 0.69% 0.69% 0.70% 0.71% Marijuana 2.01% 2.04% 2.28% 2.59% 2.67% Methadone 0.23% 0.22% 0.23% 0.21% 0.20% Opiates 0.32% 0.28% 0.29% 0.29% 0.31% Oxycodones 0.88%1 0.64%2 0.56%3 -- -- PCP 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.03% Propoxyphene 0.58% 0.55% 0.57% 0.63% 0.67%
Non-Negative Rates By Specimen Validity Test (SVT)4 Category
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 1.8 million tests from January to December 2007)
SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid-Base 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% Invalid 0.11% 0.12% 0.12% 0.08% 0.08% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.03% Substitution 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.06% 0.06%
Non-Negative Rates By Specimen Validity Test (SVT)4 Category
For General U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 6.6 million tests from January to December 2007)
SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid-Base 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% Invalid 0.13% 0.15% 0.16% 0.10% 0.10% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.02% Substitution 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.03% 0.03%
Non-Negative Rates By Drug/SVT Category
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workers, as a Percentage of All Non-Negatives
(More than 35 thousand non-negative test results from January to December 2007)
Drug/SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid/Base 0.47% 0.15% 0.27% 0.32% 0.37% Amphetamines 12.7% 12.6% 14.8% 12.7% 11.4% Cocaine 22.2% 26.3% 25.4% 23.2% 22.7% Invalid 5.5% 5.7% -- -- -- Marijuana 45.2% 43.8% 47.8% 52.4% 53.6% Opiates 9.2% 7.8% 7.7% 7.1% 7.4% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.42% 0.52% PCP 2.1% 1.6% 1.8% 1.4% 1.7% Substituted 2.7% 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.3%
Non-Negative Rates By Drug/SVT Category
For General U.S. Workforce, as a Percentage of All Non-Negatives
(More than 315 thousand non-negative test results from January to December 2007)
Drug/SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid/Base 0.04% 0.04% 0.06% 0.11% 0.16% Amphetamines 9.2% 8.8% 10.1% 10.0% 9.0% Barbiturates 2.8% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% Benzodiazepines 6.9% 6.1% 5.4% 5.0% 5.1% Cocaine 12.2% 15.0% 14.7% 13.8% 13.8% Invalid 2.8% 3.2% -- -- -- Marijuana 48.8% 49.5% 53.0% 55.0% 55.0% Methadone 2.2% 2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 1.6% Methaqualone 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Opiates 7.4% 6.6% 6.6% 6.1% 6.3% Oxycodones 1.5% 0.74% -- -- -- Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.16% 0.48% PCP 0.35% 0.31% 0.31% 0.28% 0.51% Propoxyphene 5.6% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% Substituted 0.26% 0.27% 0.26% 0.49% 0.58%
Non-Negative Rates By Drug/SVT Category
For Combined U.S. Workforce, as a Percentage of All Non-Negatives
(More than 350 thousand non-negative test results from January to December 2007)
Drug/SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid/Base 0.09% 0.05% 0.08% 0.13% 0.18% Amphetamines 9.6% 9.3% 10.6% 10.2% 9.3% Barbiturates 2.5% 2.3% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Benzodiazepines 6.1% 5.4% 4.9% 4.5% 4.7% Cocaine 13.2% 16.4% 15.7% 14.7% 14.6% Invalid 3.0% 3.5% -- -- -- Marijuana 48.4% 48.8% 52.5% 54.8% 54.9% Methadone 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 1.4% Methaqualone 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Opiates 7.6% 6.7% 6.7% 6.2% 6.4% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.19% 0.52% Oxycodones 1.4% 0.65% -- -- -- PCP 0.53% 0.46% 0.45% 0.38% 0.61% Propoxyphene 5.0% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% Substituted 0.51% 0.49% 0.45% 0.66% 0.73%
1 More than 500,000 tests
2 Approximately 400,000 tests
3 More than 200,000 tests
4 Specimen validity testing is the evaluation of a specimen to determine if it is consistent with a normal human specimen. Tests for specimen validity include tests to determine whether a specimen is adulterated or substituted.
Any statement that workplace drug abuse is lower, would be unsupportable by the findings.
The data does potentially indicate that that drug abusers have learned to cheat urine-based drug tests. This being supported by research recently concluded by the U.S. Government General Accounting Office (GAO) noting that cheating urine-based testing is easily accomplished and virtually undetectable.
The report also neglects to point out the opiate detection rates continue to climb. .. particularly oxycodones have gone up nearly 40% in one year!
" Use of Methamphetamine Among U.S. Workers and Job Applicants Drops 22 Percent in 2007 and Cocaine Use Slows Dramatically, Reports Quest Diagnostics"
Findings from Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index® also show that overall drug positivity remains at record lows
MADISON, NJ, March 12, 2008 — The percentage of positive tests for methamphetamine among U.S. job applicants and workers in the general U.S. workforce dropped more than 22 percent between 2006 and 2007.
These findings, from the Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index®, reflect the reversal of an upward trend in use of the drug by more than 73 percent from 2002 to 2004. These data were released today by Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (NYSE: DGX), the nation's leading provider of employment-related drug testing services.
The report also shows that positive tests for cocaine in the general U.S. workforce were down 19 percent between 2006 and 2007 and that overall drug use, among workers subject to drug testing, remains at an all-time low.
Methamphetamine, the most commonly abused type of amphetamine, increased in production and trafficking during the 1990’s to become the most prevalent illegally manufactured synthetic drug in the United States. Analysis of the Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index, released semi-annually, suggests that efforts to reduce illicit, clandestine production of methamphetamine may be having an impact on workplace positive tests for the drug.
"The fact that America's workers are using cocaine and methamphetamine at some of the lowest levels in years is further evidence of the tremendous success that law enforcement is having at impacting the nation's illicit drug supply," said DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart. "DEA will continue its relentless assault on the drug supply to help keep these dangerous drugs out of our neighborhoods."
While the 2007 Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index shows that positive methamphetamine tests have decreased, it also indicates that the use of amphetamine in the general workforce has increased slightly, by about five percent. Testing for methamphetamine and amphetamine was conducted among employees and applicants in the U.S. workforce tested for the class of drugs called amphetamines.
"Although some may conclude that there is a reduced availability for methamphetamine, the fact that our data show an increase in amphetamines suggests that some workers might be replacing one stimulant drug for another in the larger drug class of amphetamines," said Barry Sample, Ph.D., Director of Science and Technology for Quest Diagnostics' Employer Solutions division.
Methamphetamine and amphetamine are both types of stimulants, which typically are used by individuals to increase alertness and relieve fatigue. Stimulants are also used for euphoric effects or to counteract the "down" feeling of tranquilizers or alcohol. Possible side effects of stimulants include increased heart and respiratory rates, elevated blood pressure, dilated pupils and decreased appetite. High doses may cause rapid or irregular heartbeat, loss of coordination or collapse. Indications of possible misuse may include excessive activity, talkativeness, irritability, argumentativeness or nervousness.
Cocaine Use Continues to Decline
The Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index shows that the percentage of positive tests for cocaine was down 19 percent among the U.S. general workforce since the first half of 2007 - the largest single-year drop since 1997. Positive tests for cocaine among the general workforce declined to 0.58 percent in 2007 from 0.72 percent in 2006.
Overall Drug Use Remains at All-Time Low
Additionally, drug use by employees remains at its lowest level since Quest Diagnostics began publishing the Drug Testing Index in 1988. Among the combined U.S. workforce, only 3.8 percent of the tests had positive results — the same level reported in 2006 — compared to a high of 13.6 percent in 1988. Further, among safety-sensitive federal workers only, the Drug Testing Index showed that drug use was at an all-time low of 1.8 percent of the tested work force.
The 2007 Drug Testing Index is a summary of results from 8.4 million workplace drug tests performed by Quest Diagnostics between January and December 2007. Results are based on tests that Quest Diagnostics performs for employers that conduct pre-employment, random or for-cause drug testing. For more information, see additional results below.
About the Drug Testing Index
The Drug Testing Index is published as a public service for government, media and industry and has been considered a benchmark for national trends since its inception in 1988. It examines positivity rates — the proportion of positive results for each drug to all such drug tests performed — among three major testing populations: federally mandated, safety-sensitive workers; the general workforce; and the combined U.S. workforce. Federally mandated, safety-sensitive workers include pilots, bus and truck drivers, and workers in nuclear power plants, for whom routine drug testing is mandated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
About Quest Diagnostics
Quest Diagnostics is the leading provider of diagnostic testing, information and services that patients and doctors need to make better healthcare decisions. The company offers the broadest access to diagnostic testing services through its national network of laboratories and patient service centers, and provides interpretive consultation through its extensive medical and scientific staff. Quest Diagnostics is a pioneer in developing innovative new diagnostic tests and advanced healthcare information technology solutions that help improve patient care. Additional company information is available at: www.questdiagnostics.com.
The statements in this press release which are not historical facts or information may be forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and outcomes to be materially different. Certain of these risks and uncertainties may include, but are not limited to, competitive environment, changes in government regulations, changing relationships with customers, payers, suppliers and strategic partners and other factors described in the Quest Diagnostics Incorporated 2005 Form 10‑K and subsequent SEC filings.
The Drug Testing Index © 2008 Quest Diagnostics Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Tables Follow
Positive Prevalence Rates for Amphetamine and Methamphetamine —
Percentage of All Tests for “Amphetamines“
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamine 0.40% 0.38% 0.44% 0.45% 0.41% Methamphetamine 0.14% 0.18% 0.28% 0.33% 0.32% Percent Difference - Amphetamine 5.3% -13.6% -2.2% 9.8% Percent Difference - Methamphetamine -22.2% -35.7% -15.2% 3.1%
Positivity Rates for Cocaine
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Cocaine 0.58% 0.72% 0.70% 0.72% 0.74% Percent Difference - Cocaine -19.4% 2.9% -2.8% -2.7%
Annual Positivity Rates
For Combined U.S. Workforce
(More than 8.4 million tests from January to December 2007)
Year Drug Positive Rate 1988 13.6% 1989 12.7% 1990 11.0% 1991 8.8% 1992 8.8% 1993 8.4% 1994 7.5% 1995 6.7% 1996 5.8% 1997 5.0% 1998 4.8% 1999 4.6% 2000 4.7% 2001 4.6% 2002 4.4% 2003 4.5% 2004 4.5% 2005 4.1% 2006 3.8% 2007 3.8%
Positivity Rates By Testing Category
Testing Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce 1.8% 2.0% 2.3% 2.3% 2.5% General U.S. Workforce 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.9% 5.0% Combined U.S. Workforce 3.8% 3.8% 4.1% 4.5% 4.5%
Positivity Rates By Testing Reason
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce
(More than 1.8 million tests from January to December 2007)
Testing Reason 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Follow-Up 2.8% 3.0% 3.1% 3.3% 3.4% For Cause 11.1% 12.5% 13.4% 14.1% 13.8% Periodic 0.75% 0.59% 0.76% 0.51% 0.75% Post-Accident 2.6% 2.7% 3.0% 2.9% 3.1% Pre-Employment 2.0% 2.3% 2.6% 2.7% 2.9% Random 1.5% 1.5% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% Returned to Duty 3.3% 3.2% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8%
Positivity Rates By Testing Reason
For General U.S. Workforce
(More than 6.6 million tests from January to December 2007)
Testing Reason 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Follow-Up 7.7% 7.4% 9.6% 9.9% 9.6% For Cause 19.2% 18.1% 28.3% 27.8% 28.2% Periodic 1.4% 1.9% 2.4% 1.9% 2.2% Post-Accident 5.8% 5.7% 5.8% 5.7% 5.7% Pre-Employment 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% Random 5.7% 5.5% 6.6% 7.1% 6.6% Returned to Duty 5.6% 5.8% 6.0% 5.5% 5.6%
Positivity Rates By Drug Category
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 1.8 million tests from January to December 2007)
Drug Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamines 0.25% 0.28% 0.35% 0.31% 0.29% Cocaine 0.44% 0.58% 0.60% 0.57% 0.59% Marijuana 0.88% 0.94% 1.10% 1.25% 1.34% Opiates 0.18% 0.17% 0.18% 0.17% 0.19% PCP 0.04% 0.03% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04%
Positivity Rates By Drug Category
For General U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 6.6 million tests from January to December 2007)
Drug Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamines 0.44% 0.42% 0.48% 0.52% 0.49% Barbiturates 0.24% 0.23% 0.25% 0.27% 0.29% Benzodiazepines 0.67% 0.62% 0.58% 0.58% 0.60% Cocaine 0.58% 0.72% 0.70% 0.72% 0.74% Marijuana 2.34% 2.38% 2.54% 2.88% 2.96% Methadone 0.23% 0.22% 0.23% 0.21% 0.20% Opiates 0.35% 0.32% 0.32% 0.32% 0.34% Oxycodones 0.88%1 0.64%2 0.56%3 -- -- PCP 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 0.03% Propoxyphene 0.58% 0.55% 0.57% 0.63% 0.67%
Positivity Rates By Drug Category
For Combined U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 8.4 million tests from January to December 2007)
Drug Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamines 0.40% 0.39% 0.46% 0.49% 0.45% Barbiturates 0.24% 0.23% 0.25% 0.27% 0.29% Benzodiazepines 0.67% 0.62% 0.58% 0.58% 0.60% Cocaine 0.55% 0.69% 0.69% 0.70% 0.71% Marijuana 2.01% 2.04% 2.28% 2.59% 2.67% Methadone 0.23% 0.22% 0.23% 0.21% 0.20% Opiates 0.32% 0.28% 0.29% 0.29% 0.31% Oxycodones 0.88%1 0.64%2 0.56%3 -- -- PCP 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.03% Propoxyphene 0.58% 0.55% 0.57% 0.63% 0.67%
Non-Negative Rates By Specimen Validity Test (SVT)4 Category
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 1.8 million tests from January to December 2007)
SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid-Base 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% Invalid 0.11% 0.12% 0.12% 0.08% 0.08% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.03% Substitution 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.06% 0.06%
Non-Negative Rates By Specimen Validity Test (SVT)4 Category
For General U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 6.6 million tests from January to December 2007)
SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid-Base 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% Invalid 0.13% 0.15% 0.16% 0.10% 0.10% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.02% Substitution 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.03% 0.03%
Non-Negative Rates By Drug/SVT Category
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workers, as a Percentage of All Non-Negatives
(More than 35 thousand non-negative test results from January to December 2007)
Drug/SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid/Base 0.47% 0.15% 0.27% 0.32% 0.37% Amphetamines 12.7% 12.6% 14.8% 12.7% 11.4% Cocaine 22.2% 26.3% 25.4% 23.2% 22.7% Invalid 5.5% 5.7% -- -- -- Marijuana 45.2% 43.8% 47.8% 52.4% 53.6% Opiates 9.2% 7.8% 7.7% 7.1% 7.4% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.42% 0.52% PCP 2.1% 1.6% 1.8% 1.4% 1.7% Substituted 2.7% 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.3%
Non-Negative Rates By Drug/SVT Category
For General U.S. Workforce, as a Percentage of All Non-Negatives
(More than 315 thousand non-negative test results from January to December 2007)
Drug/SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid/Base 0.04% 0.04% 0.06% 0.11% 0.16% Amphetamines 9.2% 8.8% 10.1% 10.0% 9.0% Barbiturates 2.8% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% Benzodiazepines 6.9% 6.1% 5.4% 5.0% 5.1% Cocaine 12.2% 15.0% 14.7% 13.8% 13.8% Invalid 2.8% 3.2% -- -- -- Marijuana 48.8% 49.5% 53.0% 55.0% 55.0% Methadone 2.2% 2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 1.6% Methaqualone 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Opiates 7.4% 6.6% 6.6% 6.1% 6.3% Oxycodones 1.5% 0.74% -- -- -- Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.16% 0.48% PCP 0.35% 0.31% 0.31% 0.28% 0.51% Propoxyphene 5.6% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% Substituted 0.26% 0.27% 0.26% 0.49% 0.58%
Non-Negative Rates By Drug/SVT Category
For Combined U.S. Workforce, as a Percentage of All Non-Negatives
(More than 350 thousand non-negative test results from January to December 2007)
Drug/SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid/Base 0.09% 0.05% 0.08% 0.13% 0.18% Amphetamines 9.6% 9.3% 10.6% 10.2% 9.3% Barbiturates 2.5% 2.3% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Benzodiazepines 6.1% 5.4% 4.9% 4.5% 4.7% Cocaine 13.2% 16.4% 15.7% 14.7% 14.6% Invalid 3.0% 3.5% -- -- -- Marijuana 48.4% 48.8% 52.5% 54.8% 54.9% Methadone 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 1.4% Methaqualone 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Opiates 7.6% 6.7% 6.7% 6.2% 6.4% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.19% 0.52% Oxycodones 1.4% 0.65% -- -- -- PCP 0.53% 0.46% 0.45% 0.38% 0.61% Propoxyphene 5.0% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% Substituted 0.51% 0.49% 0.45% 0.66% 0.73%
1 More than 500,000 tests
2 Approximately 400,000 tests
3 More than 200,000 tests
4 Specimen validity testing is the evaluation of a specimen to determine if it is consistent with a normal human specimen. Tests for specimen validity include tests to determine whether a specimen is adulterated or substituted.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Sometimes Unions on the Wrong Side of Drug Testing Debate
Sometimes unions don't act in the best interests of their membership or the community.
THE Massachusetts Joint Labor-Management Committee has taken jurisdiction of the contract dispute between the City of Boston and the firefighters' union (Local 718). However, this step does not mean that mandatory alcohol and drug testing is any closer to becoming a reality in the Boston Fire Department.
The president of the state firefighters' union has argued that the Joint Labor-Management Committee cannot consider drug testing in arbitration.
That view should not prevail, as this contract must begin the effort to break through the imbedded culture of the Fire Department by including basic management reform measures and mandatory drug testing.
Actually, the more relevant question is why is drug testing subject to collective bargaining?
Clearly, it is in the broader interest of the Commonwealth that all uniformed public safety employees be required to annually undergo standard drug and alcohol testing.
While this contract may be settled before such change, drug testing should be a state public safety requirement, not subject to local negotiations.
Following a tragic restaurant fire in West Roxbury in August, in which two firefighters died, city officials in early October presented to Local 718 a comprehensive alcohol and drug testing policy for negotiation. The union has yet to respond in writing to the city's proposal.
The Menino administration had put drug testing on the table in contract negotiations with Local 718 in 1999 !!!!!, and 2004 but no agreement was reached.
Union resistance and the city's desire to secure other needed management reforms in the Fire Department at a reasonable cost are why drug testing has not been yet approved.
The firefighters' union maintains that the Joint Labor-Management Committee cannot consider drug testing as an issue for arbitration in the Boston dispute because the city did not list drug testing in its petition filed last August. The union would prefer to negotiate this matter separately with the city for a reported 21 percent salary increase rather than have the Joint Labor-Management Committee require drug testing in an arbitration decision.
The union's position is not supported by state law or the Joint Labor-Management Committee's case history, which shows several examples of decisions rendered in fire union cases that include issues not listed in the initial petitions, including drug testing.
Local 718 has high expectations for a new contract with drug testing and points to the 1998 police contract that provided for drug testing and also accepted the Quinn Bill. However, in that contract, the police accepted no salary increases in fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 when firefighters received 4 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively.
Also, drug testing was considered innovative nine years ago and not the norm that it is today. Indeed, random alcohol and drug testing is more common in major urban fire departments around the country, including Baltimore, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco.
The contract with Local 718 should include mandatory random alcohol and drug testing, but if it does not include other significant reform measures at a cost consistent with the recently negotiated public safety contracts, it should not be approved.
The stakes are too high for the welfare of the public and firefighters to settle for small incremental change in this contract.
Orignal Source: Boston Globe
THE Massachusetts Joint Labor-Management Committee has taken jurisdiction of the contract dispute between the City of Boston and the firefighters' union (Local 718). However, this step does not mean that mandatory alcohol and drug testing is any closer to becoming a reality in the Boston Fire Department.
The president of the state firefighters' union has argued that the Joint Labor-Management Committee cannot consider drug testing in arbitration.
That view should not prevail, as this contract must begin the effort to break through the imbedded culture of the Fire Department by including basic management reform measures and mandatory drug testing.
Actually, the more relevant question is why is drug testing subject to collective bargaining?
Clearly, it is in the broader interest of the Commonwealth that all uniformed public safety employees be required to annually undergo standard drug and alcohol testing.
While this contract may be settled before such change, drug testing should be a state public safety requirement, not subject to local negotiations.
Following a tragic restaurant fire in West Roxbury in August, in which two firefighters died, city officials in early October presented to Local 718 a comprehensive alcohol and drug testing policy for negotiation. The union has yet to respond in writing to the city's proposal.
The Menino administration had put drug testing on the table in contract negotiations with Local 718 in 1999 !!!!!, and 2004 but no agreement was reached.
Union resistance and the city's desire to secure other needed management reforms in the Fire Department at a reasonable cost are why drug testing has not been yet approved.
The firefighters' union maintains that the Joint Labor-Management Committee cannot consider drug testing as an issue for arbitration in the Boston dispute because the city did not list drug testing in its petition filed last August. The union would prefer to negotiate this matter separately with the city for a reported 21 percent salary increase rather than have the Joint Labor-Management Committee require drug testing in an arbitration decision.
The union's position is not supported by state law or the Joint Labor-Management Committee's case history, which shows several examples of decisions rendered in fire union cases that include issues not listed in the initial petitions, including drug testing.
Local 718 has high expectations for a new contract with drug testing and points to the 1998 police contract that provided for drug testing and also accepted the Quinn Bill. However, in that contract, the police accepted no salary increases in fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 when firefighters received 4 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively.
Also, drug testing was considered innovative nine years ago and not the norm that it is today. Indeed, random alcohol and drug testing is more common in major urban fire departments around the country, including Baltimore, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco.
The contract with Local 718 should include mandatory random alcohol and drug testing, but if it does not include other significant reform measures at a cost consistent with the recently negotiated public safety contracts, it should not be approved.
The stakes are too high for the welfare of the public and firefighters to settle for small incremental change in this contract.
Orignal Source: Boston Globe
Friday, January 18, 2008
FAQs - Oral fluid / Saliva Drug Testing - Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ – Oral Fluid-based / Saliva Workplace Drug Testing
What is a preliminary test?
A preliminary (qualitative) test is a single test result based on an initial screen, providing a negative or non-negative result. The technology used for the Avitar ORALscreen is lateral flow immunoassay.
Why is a confirmatory test necessary?
The purpose of a confirmation test is to eliminate any false positive test results from an initial screening. A confirmatory test provides a quantitative result through a GC/MS or LC/MS/MS instrumented process. The substance and the concentration of substance can be accurately determined.
Is there any health risk involved in placing the sample collection device in the test subject's mouth?
No. The sample collection device is stored in hygienic sealed packaging until it is used. When used correctly there is no direct contact between the sample collection foam an the test. Biocompatibility testing has been conducted on the basis of the requirements and has shown that the sample collection device can be classified as biocompatible with regard to its intended use.
How long is the shelf-life of the test kits?
The shelf-life is stated as expiration date, “Exp.” on the device packaging.
Can an opened test kit be left unused?
No. The test kit must be used immediately after opening.
How quickly must the result read once it has been developed?
Negatives can be read once all red lines (5), are visible. Non-negative results should be read at the 15 minute mark. No on-site device results should be interpreted after 15 minutes.
The test subject has a very dry mouth. Will it be possible to obtain a sufficient sample of oral fluid?
Certain drugs have an inhibitory effect on the production of oral fluid or saliva.
Prior the collection, instruct the donor to drink a glass (8 ounces) of water, and wait 5 minutes. If after three minutes of sample collection the collector foam is not completely saturated with oral fluid repeat the collection.
Which substances can be identified using the ORALscreen?
At the present time, the ORALscreen system can detect 96% or drugs typically tested for in the workplace, including the following substances or classes of substances; in samples of oral fluid: Amphetamines: METHAMPHETAMINE and MDMA / Ecstasy.
Opitates:CODIENE, HEROINEi, MORPHINE, 6-AM (heroin metabolite), OXYCODONE (Oxycontin, Peroset, etc.), OXYMORPHONE, HYDROCODONE (Vocodin, Lortab, etc.), HYDROMORPHONE, Di-hydrocodine,
Marijana: delta-9 THC,
Cocaine: COCAINE, BENZYCLONIE (cocaine metabolite)
Which prescription drugs and designer drugs can be detected?
The ORALscreen is one of the only on-site oral fluid-based devices available that can accurately dectect the commonly abused classes of prescription pain releivers. Common brand names are Oxycontin, Percoset, Vicodin, Lortab, etc.
The METH test of ORALscreen allows detection not only of methamphetamine, but also other important designer amphetamines such as methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA,
"Ecstasy“).
What is the NIDA 5, SAMSHA, DOT-5 panel
This panel consists of tests for amphetamines, cocaine, morphine (heroin), PCP, and THC (marijuana). It is important to note the following:
1. PCP has a positivity rate of less that 0.3%
2. The cut-off level for OPIATES is set at 2000 ng/ml, thus making the test less effective than ORALscreen for detecting OPIATE use / abuse.
3. NIDA-5 / DOT-5, SAMSHA CAN NOT detect the commonly abuse prescription pain releivers OXYCODONE, HYDROCODONE, etc., perhaps the number one threat to workplace safety today.
Does the test show cross-reactions with other legal substances?
Because the ORALscreen system, is an immunoassay process, based on the
antigen/antibody reaction, cross-reactivity are possible. However, the antibodies used are very specific, thus cross reactivity is minimal. Confirmatory testing and MRO procedures are established to elminate false positives.
How quickly is the test result ready?
The entire on-site screen result, from the start of the sample-collection process to display of the result, takes 5 to 15 minutes on average.
Does the device have to be disposed of after analysis, or can it be sent off for a confirmation analysis?
For a negative result, the device can be disposed of. Oral fluid, without any visible signs of blood, is not considered a biohazard by the CDC.
For a non-negative result, a second sample can be collectef for confirmation analysis. Confirmation directly from the device is also available. Please discuss this option with your Avitar representative
Are there limits below which drugs cannot be detected? If so, what are these limits?
Detection windows (times) and sensitivity, cut-off values, exist for all drugs.
Thus a negative result means either that the tested saliva contains no drugs, or that they are present in concentrations below the respective cut-off value. In general detection of drugs in oral fluid ranges from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days. Available research indicates on that marijana (THC-delta 9) can not be detected beyond 18-24 hrs. in oral fluid at ng/ml levels, regardless of the test / test technique.
What result does the ORALscreen test window display?
The test window displays the results of the analysis, distinct for each class of drugs, in the form of a qualitative reading with either an absent line for a non-negative sample (potentially containing drugs) or a line for a negative sample (not containing drugs or drugs below the cut-off level). A control line is also visible to indicate proper operation of the device.
What is the best measure of accuracy?
Accuarcy is a comparative ratio of sensitivty and specificity. Accuracy for any device should be measured by comparing the device to a quantitative test (GC/MS or LC/MS/MS) on a “paired sample” basis using the same speciment type. Accuracy should not be measured by comparing results between two device or between different specimen types due to varying detection windows and other factors.
Sensitivity refers to the ratio of true positive (TP) samples to the total number of samples rated positive by the test kit ((TP + FP, false positive).
Specificity refers to the ratio of true negative (TN) samples to the total number of samples rated as negative by the test kit (TN + FN, false negative).
Accuracy refers to the ratio of correctly identified samples to the total number of samples.
Sensitivity:
TP
(TP+FF)
Specificity:
TN
(TN+FN)
Accuracy:
(TP+FN)
(TP)FP+TN+FN)
How were the system's key performance data determined?
By tests with spiked synthetic saliva the system's key performance data of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were determined, and some limited field trials were conducted by Avitar and third parties.
Can the test kits be purchased individually?
The test kits are available in boxes (containing 20 test kits), or cases (containing 5 boxes).
The test subject has just eaten or drunk something or has just been smoking. Will this affect the test result?
The test subject must have nothing in their mout for a minimum of 5 minutes berfore the test.
Can eating poppy seeds cause a false positive drug test for heroin?
Eating poppy seeds cannot turn a confirmatory drug test positive for heroin. However, poppy seeds to contain morphine. Therefore, eating poppy seeds (e.g. a poppy seed bagel) can result a in a non-negative on-site result. This effect can be mitigated by waiting 45 minutes and retesting the individuals, as it’s a very short term issues
Can passive inhalation of marijuana cause a false positive drug test?
Sometimes people who test positive for marijuana will claim it was the result of passive inhalation.
Available research show that an individual must have been in an confined space, such as an automobile, for a period of time in order for detectable levels of THC-delta 9 to be found in oral fluid. Any potential effect is also of short (45min-one hour) duration. Thus, claims of passive inhalation “over the weekend” or even “last night”, would not cause a non-negative on-site test result.
Can over-the-counter cold medications cause a false positive drug test?
No. Avitar’s methamphetamine tests are very specific, and will not react with OTC cold remedies, with the GC/MS confirmatory test also serving as a safeguard.
By the end of the sampling process, the sampling collector doesn’t appear
saturated with oral fluid . Will this affect the test result?
The device will not run (no read wash and/or no control line) without adequate sample. It is important that the foam collector is completely saturated, thus extend the collection time and provide additional water as needed.
Do the on-site results provide legal proof of drug abuse?
No. An on-site drug test can only deliver general qualitative "screening" results.
Any “non-negative” screening result should be following with a confirmatory (GC/MS or LC/MS/MS) analysis with all associated processes and documentation completed properly.
After collecting a sample, the sponge is found to contain some blood. Does this affect the test result?
No. Blood does not affect the test result, however, the specimen should be considered a bio-hazard.
How is it possible to tell which test result relates to which test subject?
By means donor ID inscribed into the device, and or chain of custody number assigned for confirmatory testing.
Can the test subject manipulate the test result?
No. Sample collection can directly observed during the entire process avoiding any type of manipulation. The subject may attempt to hold the foam collector away from any oral fluid, however, this practic is also observable. If intentional, the practice should be considered an attempt to interfere with the testing process and be handled per company policy.
.
How comparable are oral fluid / saliva and blood substance abuse readings?
Study data reveal an overall correlation / correspondence in positive oral fluid samples with positive blood samples in more than 95 percent of cases.
Which method of analysis is most suitable for a confirmation analysis?
The usual reference method is gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or liquid chromatography (LC/MS/MS).
How quickly can drug consumption be detected by means of an oral fluid analysis?
The individual drugs and/or their metabolites can be detected in the saliva immediately, or within minutes after oral ingestion. On average, it takes several hours for drug metabolites to be detected post-consumption in urine.
How long after consumption can the individual drugs be detected in saliva?
The time window during which drugs can be detected in oral fluid depends on various factors; e.g. the quantity consumed, the frequency of consumption, the time between the drug consumption and the test and a person's individual metabolism.
Various studies have shown that amphetamines/methamphetamines remain in the saliva in sufficient quantities for detection for up to 50 hours; cocaine can be detected for up to 12-36 hours, opiates for up to 24 hours and longer, and cannabinoids for up to 24 hours.
Do the test results provide legal proof of drug abuse?
Any on-site drug test can only deliver general "screening" results. After any non-negative screening result a confirmation analysis (e.g. with GC-MS / LC/MS/MS) should be performed.
The quantitative result is legally defensable.
What is a preliminary test?
A preliminary (qualitative) test is a single test result based on an initial screen, providing a negative or non-negative result. The technology used for the Avitar ORALscreen is lateral flow immunoassay.
Why is a confirmatory test necessary?
The purpose of a confirmation test is to eliminate any false positive test results from an initial screening. A confirmatory test provides a quantitative result through a GC/MS or LC/MS/MS instrumented process. The substance and the concentration of substance can be accurately determined.
Is there any health risk involved in placing the sample collection device in the test subject's mouth?
No. The sample collection device is stored in hygienic sealed packaging until it is used. When used correctly there is no direct contact between the sample collection foam an the test. Biocompatibility testing has been conducted on the basis of the requirements and has shown that the sample collection device can be classified as biocompatible with regard to its intended use.
How long is the shelf-life of the test kits?
The shelf-life is stated as expiration date, “Exp.” on the device packaging.
Can an opened test kit be left unused?
No. The test kit must be used immediately after opening.
How quickly must the result read once it has been developed?
Negatives can be read once all red lines (5), are visible. Non-negative results should be read at the 15 minute mark. No on-site device results should be interpreted after 15 minutes.
The test subject has a very dry mouth. Will it be possible to obtain a sufficient sample of oral fluid?
Certain drugs have an inhibitory effect on the production of oral fluid or saliva.
Prior the collection, instruct the donor to drink a glass (8 ounces) of water, and wait 5 minutes. If after three minutes of sample collection the collector foam is not completely saturated with oral fluid repeat the collection.
Which substances can be identified using the ORALscreen?
At the present time, the ORALscreen system can detect 96% or drugs typically tested for in the workplace, including the following substances or classes of substances; in samples of oral fluid: Amphetamines: METHAMPHETAMINE and MDMA / Ecstasy.
Opitates:CODIENE, HEROINEi, MORPHINE, 6-AM (heroin metabolite), OXYCODONE (Oxycontin, Peroset, etc.), OXYMORPHONE, HYDROCODONE (Vocodin, Lortab, etc.), HYDROMORPHONE, Di-hydrocodine,
Marijana: delta-9 THC,
Cocaine: COCAINE, BENZYCLONIE (cocaine metabolite)
Which prescription drugs and designer drugs can be detected?
The ORALscreen is one of the only on-site oral fluid-based devices available that can accurately dectect the commonly abused classes of prescription pain releivers. Common brand names are Oxycontin, Percoset, Vicodin, Lortab, etc.
The METH test of ORALscreen allows detection not only of methamphetamine, but also other important designer amphetamines such as methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA,
"Ecstasy“).
What is the NIDA 5, SAMSHA, DOT-5 panel
This panel consists of tests for amphetamines, cocaine, morphine (heroin), PCP, and THC (marijuana). It is important to note the following:
1. PCP has a positivity rate of less that 0.3%
2. The cut-off level for OPIATES is set at 2000 ng/ml, thus making the test less effective than ORALscreen for detecting OPIATE use / abuse.
3. NIDA-5 / DOT-5, SAMSHA CAN NOT detect the commonly abuse prescription pain releivers OXYCODONE, HYDROCODONE, etc., perhaps the number one threat to workplace safety today.
Does the test show cross-reactions with other legal substances?
Because the ORALscreen system, is an immunoassay process, based on the
antigen/antibody reaction, cross-reactivity are possible. However, the antibodies used are very specific, thus cross reactivity is minimal. Confirmatory testing and MRO procedures are established to elminate false positives.
How quickly is the test result ready?
The entire on-site screen result, from the start of the sample-collection process to display of the result, takes 5 to 15 minutes on average.
Does the device have to be disposed of after analysis, or can it be sent off for a confirmation analysis?
For a negative result, the device can be disposed of. Oral fluid, without any visible signs of blood, is not considered a biohazard by the CDC.
For a non-negative result, a second sample can be collectef for confirmation analysis. Confirmation directly from the device is also available. Please discuss this option with your Avitar representative
Are there limits below which drugs cannot be detected? If so, what are these limits?
Detection windows (times) and sensitivity, cut-off values, exist for all drugs.
Thus a negative result means either that the tested saliva contains no drugs, or that they are present in concentrations below the respective cut-off value. In general detection of drugs in oral fluid ranges from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days. Available research indicates on that marijana (THC-delta 9) can not be detected beyond 18-24 hrs. in oral fluid at ng/ml levels, regardless of the test / test technique.
What result does the ORALscreen test window display?
The test window displays the results of the analysis, distinct for each class of drugs, in the form of a qualitative reading with either an absent line for a non-negative sample (potentially containing drugs) or a line for a negative sample (not containing drugs or drugs below the cut-off level). A control line is also visible to indicate proper operation of the device.
What is the best measure of accuracy?
Accuarcy is a comparative ratio of sensitivty and specificity. Accuracy for any device should be measured by comparing the device to a quantitative test (GC/MS or LC/MS/MS) on a “paired sample” basis using the same speciment type. Accuracy should not be measured by comparing results between two device or between different specimen types due to varying detection windows and other factors.
Sensitivity refers to the ratio of true positive (TP) samples to the total number of samples rated positive by the test kit ((TP + FP, false positive).
Specificity refers to the ratio of true negative (TN) samples to the total number of samples rated as negative by the test kit (TN + FN, false negative).
Accuracy refers to the ratio of correctly identified samples to the total number of samples.
Sensitivity:
TP
(TP+FF)
Specificity:
TN
(TN+FN)
Accuracy:
(TP+FN)
(TP)FP+TN+FN)
How were the system's key performance data determined?
By tests with spiked synthetic saliva the system's key performance data of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were determined, and some limited field trials were conducted by Avitar and third parties.
Can the test kits be purchased individually?
The test kits are available in boxes (containing 20 test kits), or cases (containing 5 boxes).
The test subject has just eaten or drunk something or has just been smoking. Will this affect the test result?
The test subject must have nothing in their mout for a minimum of 5 minutes berfore the test.
Can eating poppy seeds cause a false positive drug test for heroin?
Eating poppy seeds cannot turn a confirmatory drug test positive for heroin. However, poppy seeds to contain morphine. Therefore, eating poppy seeds (e.g. a poppy seed bagel) can result a in a non-negative on-site result. This effect can be mitigated by waiting 45 minutes and retesting the individuals, as it’s a very short term issues
Can passive inhalation of marijuana cause a false positive drug test?
Sometimes people who test positive for marijuana will claim it was the result of passive inhalation.
Available research show that an individual must have been in an confined space, such as an automobile, for a period of time in order for detectable levels of THC-delta 9 to be found in oral fluid. Any potential effect is also of short (45min-one hour) duration. Thus, claims of passive inhalation “over the weekend” or even “last night”, would not cause a non-negative on-site test result.
Can over-the-counter cold medications cause a false positive drug test?
No. Avitar’s methamphetamine tests are very specific, and will not react with OTC cold remedies, with the GC/MS confirmatory test also serving as a safeguard.
By the end of the sampling process, the sampling collector doesn’t appear
saturated with oral fluid . Will this affect the test result?
The device will not run (no read wash and/or no control line) without adequate sample. It is important that the foam collector is completely saturated, thus extend the collection time and provide additional water as needed.
Do the on-site results provide legal proof of drug abuse?
No. An on-site drug test can only deliver general qualitative "screening" results.
Any “non-negative” screening result should be following with a confirmatory (GC/MS or LC/MS/MS) analysis with all associated processes and documentation completed properly.
After collecting a sample, the sponge is found to contain some blood. Does this affect the test result?
No. Blood does not affect the test result, however, the specimen should be considered a bio-hazard.
How is it possible to tell which test result relates to which test subject?
By means donor ID inscribed into the device, and or chain of custody number assigned for confirmatory testing.
Can the test subject manipulate the test result?
No. Sample collection can directly observed during the entire process avoiding any type of manipulation. The subject may attempt to hold the foam collector away from any oral fluid, however, this practic is also observable. If intentional, the practice should be considered an attempt to interfere with the testing process and be handled per company policy.
.
How comparable are oral fluid / saliva and blood substance abuse readings?
Study data reveal an overall correlation / correspondence in positive oral fluid samples with positive blood samples in more than 95 percent of cases.
Which method of analysis is most suitable for a confirmation analysis?
The usual reference method is gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or liquid chromatography (LC/MS/MS).
How quickly can drug consumption be detected by means of an oral fluid analysis?
The individual drugs and/or their metabolites can be detected in the saliva immediately, or within minutes after oral ingestion. On average, it takes several hours for drug metabolites to be detected post-consumption in urine.
How long after consumption can the individual drugs be detected in saliva?
The time window during which drugs can be detected in oral fluid depends on various factors; e.g. the quantity consumed, the frequency of consumption, the time between the drug consumption and the test and a person's individual metabolism.
Various studies have shown that amphetamines/methamphetamines remain in the saliva in sufficient quantities for detection for up to 50 hours; cocaine can be detected for up to 12-36 hours, opiates for up to 24 hours and longer, and cannabinoids for up to 24 hours.
Do the test results provide legal proof of drug abuse?
Any on-site drug test can only deliver general "screening" results. After any non-negative screening result a confirmation analysis (e.g. with GC-MS / LC/MS/MS) should be performed.
The quantitative result is legally defensable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
