Granted, society is 5-8 years late recognizing this serious problem, but at least it is now out in full view.
Prescribed problem Illegal use of medications a growing concern
OHIO - 2009 - The Daily Record - The stereotypical view of drug addicts buying their daily fix in small bags in back alleys is giving way to a new reality of prescription drug abuse where pharmaceuticals come in plastic bottles with a prescription pasted on the side.
Police and drug enforcement are dealing with a growing threat in the form of abuse of pharmaceutical opiates such as Oxycontin, Vicodin and Percocet. Typically prescribed for pain through legitimate prescriptions, obtained by deceptive means, or raiding medicine cabinets, the drugs are creating a new culture of addicts and dealers.
Only the OraPoint on-site drug screen effectively screens for these prescription pain relievers.
The problem with pharmaceutical opiates, according to Medway Drug Enforcement Agency Director David Smith, has grown in recent years so much it had to double its pharmaceutical diversion unit.
"If they learn there's an easy mark out there, they'll travel. Within that type of community, that word travels real fast. I'm sure they go to rural areas because they assume no one's watching, (rather) than to go to a bigger city," Smith said. "We have seen people from all over, not just adjacent counties, (but) two, three counties away."
The pharmaceutical diversion unit began May 2008, with aid of grant funding, consisting of former Wayne County Sheriff's deputy Jim Garrett. Bill Hofer, a former Wooster Police officer, came on in May to help with the caseload.
Cases investigated come from complaints filed, whether it's a doctor's office, a pharmacy, law enforcement or anonymous tips.
Medway made seven buys of Xanax in 2008, compared to two buys in 2007, and six buys of Oxycontin in 2008, compared to one buy in 2007. Other opiates purchased in 2008, not seen in 2007, include morphine, Darvocet, Lorazepam, Percocet, Klonopin and Hydrocodone.
Garrett said he has done a lot of outreach to local pharmacies, hospitals and they have been receptive and cooperative.
"They're on the front lines, they have a keen sense of observation," he said of local doctors. "Red flags will go up. They'll either question it or call us."
In 2008, Wooster Police reported 29 thefts of medication. So far this year, 11 thefts of medication were reported, Chief Steve Glick said.
"It's a tough one for us to do anything in a preventative measure because it's going to be happening inside people's homes," Glick said. "... It's kind of a wide ranging problem. Drugs like cocaine have to be imported and have to get here. Oxycontin, Vicodin, Percocet, those drugs are readily available, and it's not the health profession's fault necessarily, it's just the fact that the drugs are available because they are prescribed."
Millersburg Police detective Sgt. Roger Estill said investigations have turned up instances of trafficking as well as addiction involving opiate-based prescription drugs. The drugs are often obtained through fraudulent means from pharmacies and emergency rooms, prompting physicians and pharmacists to watch for signs that illegal activity is occurring.
"I don't think there is an increase in activity. What's happening is an increase in reporting," Estill said. "The medical community is looking for it more, were getting a lot of cooperation from pharmacies."
Two individuals facing felony charges in Holmes County Common Pleas Court are charged with using deceptive means to obtain the drugs. The cases involve a 48-year-old Millersburg man who tried to get a prescription filled twice after claiming to have lost the first prescription, and a 28-year-old Warsaw woman charged with changing the number of pills on a prescription form.
In both cases, the drugs were legally prescribed by a physician, only not in the amounts requested.
"I find that when you go talk to them, they acknowledge it's a problem, but they don't know how to address the problem," Garrett said of people addicted to opiates. "They're just embarrassed to come to their family and say 'I have a problem.' Unfortunately, it takes us to contact them to admit it."
Showing posts with label samhsa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label samhsa. Show all posts
Friday, June 5, 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.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Death From Prescription Drugs Soar 2008
Source: CNN July 2008
Deaths from medication errors at home are up dramatically in last 20 years
Increase steepest in death rates from mixing meds, alcohol, street drugs at home
Researchers cite dramatic rise in home use of prescription painkillers
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Deaths from medication mistakes at home, such as actor Heath Ledger's accidental overdose, rose dramatically during the past two decades, an analysis of U.S. death certificates finds.
Prescription drug abuse plays a role in the rise in fatalities, but it's unclear how much, researchers said. The authors blame soaring home use of prescription painkillers and other potent drugs, which 25 years ago were given mainly inside hospitals.
"The amount of medical supervision is going down and the amount of responsibility put on the patient's shoulders is going up," said lead author David P. Phillips of the University of California, San Diego.
The findings, based on nearly 50 million U.S. death certificates, are published in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine. Of those, more than 224,000 involved fatal medication errors, including overdoses and mixing prescription drugs with alcohol or street drugs.
Deaths from medication mistakes at home increased from 1,132 deaths in 1983 to 12,426in 2004. Adjusted for population growth, that amounts to an increase of more than 700percent during that time.
In contrast, there was only a 5 percent increase in fatal medication errors away from home, including hospitals, and not involving alcohol or street drugs.
Abuse of prescription drugs plays a role, but it's unclear how much. Valid prescriptions taken in error, especially narcotics such as methadone and oxycodone, account for a growing number of deaths, said experts who reviewed the study.
The increases coincided with changing attitudes about painkillers among doctors who now regard pain management as a key to healing. Multiple prescription drugs taken at once -- like the sleeping pills, painkillers and anxiety drugs that killed "Dark Knight" star Ledger -- also play a part, experts said.
"When we see overdoses, we're seeing many more mixed drug overdoses," said Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners and director of autopsies at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Jentzen said autopsies are much more likely to include toxicology tests today than 25 years ago, which would contribute to finding more fatal medication errors as cause of death.
But Phillips said there were no significant increases in other poisonings, such as suicidal overdoses or homicides, so more testing doesn't explain the huge increase. The analysis excluded suicides, homicides and deaths related to side effects.
The increase was steepest in death rates from mixing medicine with alcohol or street drugs at home; that death rate climbed from 0.04 per 100,000 people in 1983 to 1.29 per 100,000 people in 2004.
Many patients ignore the risk of mixing alcohol with prescriptions, said Cynthia Kuhn of Duke University Medical Center, who was not involved in the study.
"They think, 'Oh, one drink won't hurt.' Then they have three or four," Kuhn said.
The increase in deaths was highest among baby boomers, people in their 40s and 50s.
"We're sort of drug happy," said boomer Dr. J. Lyle Bootman, the University of Arizona's pharmacy dean, who was not involved in the research. "We have this general attitude that drugs can fix everything."
Health Library
MayoClinic.com: Get the most out of your meds
People share prescriptions at an alarming rate, Bootman said. One recent study found 23 percent of people say they have loaned their prescription medicine to someone else and 27 percent say they have borrowed someone else's prescription drugs.
Kenneth Kolosh, a statistics expert at the National Safety Council, praised the study but said improved attention to coding location on death certificates may account, in part, for the huge increases the researchers found.
Phillips countered that home deaths from any cause increased relatively little during the time period, so better coding doesn't explain the change.
Michael R. Cohen, president of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, said more states should require pharmacists to teach patients about dangerous drugs and insurers should pay pharmacists to do so.
Deaths from medication errors at home are up dramatically in last 20 years
Increase steepest in death rates from mixing meds, alcohol, street drugs at home
Researchers cite dramatic rise in home use of prescription painkillers
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Deaths from medication mistakes at home, such as actor Heath Ledger's accidental overdose, rose dramatically during the past two decades, an analysis of U.S. death certificates finds.
Prescription drug abuse plays a role in the rise in fatalities, but it's unclear how much, researchers said. The authors blame soaring home use of prescription painkillers and other potent drugs, which 25 years ago were given mainly inside hospitals.
"The amount of medical supervision is going down and the amount of responsibility put on the patient's shoulders is going up," said lead author David P. Phillips of the University of California, San Diego.
The findings, based on nearly 50 million U.S. death certificates, are published in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine. Of those, more than 224,000 involved fatal medication errors, including overdoses and mixing prescription drugs with alcohol or street drugs.
Deaths from medication mistakes at home increased from 1,132 deaths in 1983 to 12,426in 2004. Adjusted for population growth, that amounts to an increase of more than 700percent during that time.
In contrast, there was only a 5 percent increase in fatal medication errors away from home, including hospitals, and not involving alcohol or street drugs.
Abuse of prescription drugs plays a role, but it's unclear how much. Valid prescriptions taken in error, especially narcotics such as methadone and oxycodone, account for a growing number of deaths, said experts who reviewed the study.
The increases coincided with changing attitudes about painkillers among doctors who now regard pain management as a key to healing. Multiple prescription drugs taken at once -- like the sleeping pills, painkillers and anxiety drugs that killed "Dark Knight" star Ledger -- also play a part, experts said.
"When we see overdoses, we're seeing many more mixed drug overdoses," said Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners and director of autopsies at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Jentzen said autopsies are much more likely to include toxicology tests today than 25 years ago, which would contribute to finding more fatal medication errors as cause of death.
But Phillips said there were no significant increases in other poisonings, such as suicidal overdoses or homicides, so more testing doesn't explain the huge increase. The analysis excluded suicides, homicides and deaths related to side effects.
The increase was steepest in death rates from mixing medicine with alcohol or street drugs at home; that death rate climbed from 0.04 per 100,000 people in 1983 to 1.29 per 100,000 people in 2004.
Many patients ignore the risk of mixing alcohol with prescriptions, said Cynthia Kuhn of Duke University Medical Center, who was not involved in the study.
"They think, 'Oh, one drink won't hurt.' Then they have three or four," Kuhn said.
The increase in deaths was highest among baby boomers, people in their 40s and 50s.
"We're sort of drug happy," said boomer Dr. J. Lyle Bootman, the University of Arizona's pharmacy dean, who was not involved in the research. "We have this general attitude that drugs can fix everything."
Health Library
MayoClinic.com: Get the most out of your meds
People share prescriptions at an alarming rate, Bootman said. One recent study found 23 percent of people say they have loaned their prescription medicine to someone else and 27 percent say they have borrowed someone else's prescription drugs.
Kenneth Kolosh, a statistics expert at the National Safety Council, praised the study but said improved attention to coding location on death certificates may account, in part, for the huge increases the researchers found.
Phillips countered that home deaths from any cause increased relatively little during the time period, so better coding doesn't explain the change.
Michael R. Cohen, president of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, said more states should require pharmacists to teach patients about dangerous drugs and insurers should pay pharmacists to do so.
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.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
New Urine Test Ruling Ineffective
The recent "final rule" for urine-based "Specimen Validity Testing" (outlined below) is clearly of limited value, as it does little to address the prevalent practice of drug abusers cheatig urine tests.
Observed collection is the only method to assure specimen validity.
The ODAPC / DOT / & SAMHSA must stop their "political crumbling" to private interest groups such as large urine laboratories and accept alternative specimen types - oral fluid, hair - where observed specimen collection is the norm.
While the General Workplace can develop effective drug free workplace programs, those subject to Federal Mandated Drug Testing clearly can not.
Summary of Final Rule for Specimen Validity Testing
Published in today’s Federal Register is a Department of Transportation Final Rule:
Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs
In summary:
1. This Final Rule makes it mandatory for laboratories to test all DOT specimens for specimen validity (i.e., adulterants and urine substitutes) and for laboratories to follow all Department of Health and Human Resources (HHS) protocols for doing so.
2. Observed collections will afford less privacy in order to guard against employee use of items designed specifically to beat the testing process.
a. Directly observed collections will continue to occur only when there is a specific reason to believe that an employee may be attempting, or have sufficient reason, to evade the testing process.
b. Items such as prosthetic devices designed to carry clean urine will be checked for by observers with both male and female donors. The observer will have the employee raise and lower clothing, and then put it back into place for the observed collection.
c. Observed collections will now be required, rather than optional, for all return-to-duty and follow-up drug testing.
3. In an effort to thwart those who would manufacturer products designed to adulterate specimens, the Final Rule will no longer have easy-to-follow tables and charts outlining the adulterants for which laboratories are testing and the scientific cutoff levels at which laboratories are testing them.
4. Definitions in the Final Rule have been changed to harmonize with the HHS.
5. During an invalid result Medical Review Officer (MRO) review, an employee admission of adulterating or substituting a specimen is now a refusal to test.
6. Pursuant to MRO requests, the Final Rule will close the potentially endless loop on invalid specimen results; and employees requiring negative results [for example, pre-employment tests], when they have medical reasons for providing invalid results, will be able to obtain them through medical evaluations to rule out signs and symptoms of drug use.
7. The Final Rule will also streamline and simplify the potential myriad of complicated laboratory-confirmed and MRO-verified drug test results.
8. The Final Rule requires drug testing laboratories to report to DOT semi-annual statistical summaries on all of their DOT testing.
9. The Final Rule effective date is August 25, 2008.
Monday, May 12, 2008
What Drugs Should I Test for ? Workplace
While a complex issue, deaths directly related to drug misuse or abuse is one set of statistics worth noting. These are compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mealth Health Services, SAMHSA, Drug Abuse Warning Network, DAWN
1%-2% of U.S. Population - Deaths resulting from drug misuse / abuse.
Demographics - 68% male
- 50% 35-54 year olds
- Highest percentage among 21-34 years olds
Most commonly death related - Opiates / Opiods
- 75% muliple drugs (average 2.7 drugs per case)
- Opiates and cocaine, opiate with alcohol, etc.
1%-2% of U.S. Population - Deaths resulting from drug misuse / abuse.
Demographics - 68% male
- 50% 35-54 year olds
- Highest percentage among 21-34 years olds
Most commonly death related - Opiates / Opiods
- 75% muliple drugs (average 2.7 drugs per case)
- Opiates and cocaine, opiate with alcohol, etc.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Unions & Drug Abuse - Construction
"A construction work site is no place for an alcohol- or drug-impaired worker," says LIUNA General President Terence M. O'Sullivan. "To limit this risk and, also, to ensure that workers who need help get it, the Laborers support efforts to establish comprehensive drug-free workplace programs in the construction industry."
Abstract
Union stewards, general members, & senior management benefit from training on the many manifestations of substance misuse in the workplace, and their impact on working people and their children, contractors, insurers, and owners. Avitar's novel approach to workplace substance abuse management can assist in providing a framework of knowledge as well as implementation monitoring tools.
Joint development of the training curriculum, drug policy, and testing programs, would, however, require the direct involvement of union management. While Avitar can supply the technical components, to gain organization-wide commitment requires high level of participation and support of union leadership. Arguably, this leadership has been lacking in specific cases.
Unions would benefit by working with contractors, owners, insurers, and innovative drug-free workplace service providers to establish comprehensive drug-free workplace policies that include an education component to demonstrate their commitment to a drug-free workplace, support random testing via observed specimen collection, and provide employee assistance programs.
Random testing via oral is convenient, effective, non-invasive, and targets "on-the-job" drug misuse. Unlike traditional urine-based testing, oral fluid testing;
1. deters substance misuse
2. reduces accidents, workers comp claims and,
2. improves workforce image and quality.
While Construction Union may be aware of the unresolved, and epidemic problem of substance abuse in the construction sector, they may not be aware that a solution exists and the importance of their playing a leading role in mitigating the issue.
Substance abuse diminishes the ability of unions to build membership and mobilize current members.
- It erodes self-esteem and autonomy and undermines union participation, power, and leadership.
- It damages the solidarity of the union community and weakens its ability to withstand employer "attacks".
1. Unfortunately many contractors, owners, and insurers view unions as an impediment to resolution of the substance abuse in the construction sector. The lack of a comprehensive and effective occupational drug-free workplace approach by Unions contributes ineffective, ad-hoc industry practices. Similarly, the AFL-CIO program requiring urine testing and specific vendors, even further delays positive, pro-active change.
2. Unions must be proactive in efforts to deter the abuse of controlled substances and alcohol on construction sites. Laborers, management, and all related constituencies would benefit by developing and negotiating a drug and alcohol testing template programs for all contractors / owners / insurers.
3. A comprehensive drug-free workplace program MUST include:
random drug testing (via observed collection - traditional urine-based testing is relatively ineffective),
education, and
assistance.
Measurement is crucial to the recognition, treatment, and prevention of substance abuse related occupational injuries, and other negative impacts. Deterrence and identification of substance abuse benefits the individuals, their immediate coworkers, workers throughout the industry, and others exposed to the negative impacts of substance misuse. (insurers, owners, contractors, public).
4. What union members do away from work is a private affair as long as they aren't impaired when reporting to work, however, traditional urine drug testing is contrary to this notion. Neither unions nor employers should not be allowed to dictate behaviors while away from work.
5. Deterrence is the goal, however, detection and assitance are true benefits.
Union MAP's (member assistance programs) are underutilized (not used 60% of the time). MAPs serve members as well as health & MMwelfare funds, contractors, owners, alike.
- MAPs help laborers & families access to assistance most needed for personal problems/issues
- MAPs control costs (lack of care created costs far exceeding MAP cost).
Labor organizations can only offer assistance to their members on a variety of health, welfare, and safety issues, including substance use disorders, only if aware of the problem.
Sources and Additional Information:
1. 50% of abuse detected now involves prescription drugs, esp. pain relievers. The abuse / misuse of many popular prescription pain releivers is not tested via traditional DOT-based urine testing.
2. While approximately 15%- 20% of construction workers abuse drugs, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics survey significantly underestimate the incidence of work related injuries and illnesses. The United States does not have a comprehensive national surveillance system for occupational injuries and illnesses. Lacking this system, major sources of US occupational health data include the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) annual survey of occupational injuries and illnesses, workers' compensation records, and physician reporting systems. Data produced by these systems have been described as fragmentary, unreliable, and inconsistent. Moreover, they have been shown to underestimate the incidence of workrelated injuries, illnesses, and even fatalities by as much as several hundred percent. (Occupational injury and illness surveillance: Conceptual filters explain underreporting; Azaroff, Lenore S; Levenstein, Charles; Wegman, David H American Journal of Public Health 09-01-2002 )
3. 77% of adults with substance abuse disorders are employed - Results From the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 05-4062. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, September 2005, p. 72.
4. LIUNA MAPs save money - Detroit, first-quarter 2003 data indicate that the LAP saves the fund about $175,000 annually over the likely cost of service to members if no MAP existed. In Southern Illinois, drug expenditures for the first two quarters since MAP usage was mandated are running more than 50 percent below the previous year's average. In Massachusetts, since the MAP was established in 1991, the Fund has saved about $8.8 million in average length of service and per diem costs for in-patient care.
5. Substance use disorders affect people from all walks of life, workers & families. According to a 2005 Hazelden Foundation survey, more than 69 percent of employed people indicated that if a family member were struggling with abuse or addiction, it would negatively affect their ability to concentrate and be productive at work. In fact, 36 percent of people who are employed admitted that at least one of their coworkers had been distracted, less productive, or missed work because of alcohol/drug abuse or addiction within their family.
6. A key message for labor organizations to communicate to employers is that treatment for substance use disorders has substantial benefits for businesses. Reported job problems, including incomplete work, absenteeism, tardiness, work-related injuries, mistakes, and disagreements with supervisors, are cut by an average of 75 percent among employees who have received treatment for substance use disorders. Furthermore, treatment has a benefit-to-cost ratio of 7:1, with substance use disorder treatment costing $1,583 on average and having a monetary benefit to society of nearly $11,487.
7. Domestic violence is directly related to substance abuse. Despite the obvious importance of involving unions in domestic violence prevention with men, little works has been done is this area. This may reflect fears that unions would not be receptive to addressing domestic violence. Senior office holders within some unions have been hesitant to apply their leadership to this issue, for various reasons. Sometimes union leadership has not understood how widespread domestic violence is. Sometimes they have argued that it is a private matter best left to the couple affected. At other times they have expressed concern but felt pessimistic about their ability to do anything about it. And on other occasions they have felt torn between their desire to protect a worker from disciplinary action or job loss and their conviction that domestic violence is wrong.
- It is every employer's legal responsibility to ensure safety in the workplace. Domestic violence compromises the well-being, job performance, and productivity of valuable employees. Many of the attitudes and gender roles that increase men's risk of using domestic violence also predispose men to other high risk behaviors, such as drug and alcohol abuse, workplace violence, or taking unnecessary safety risks to demonstrate "toughness" to peers.
- Domestic violence is a leading cause of workplace violence; it also creates safety and health risks to everyone in the workplace:
- Since almost one in four women is affected by domestic violence, we can make a conservative estimate that 10% of employees may be affected by domestic violence.
- 24% of abused women said they were either late or missed days of work due to abuse
- 54% of abused women missed up to three full days of work per month.
- 94% of corporate security directors surveyed rank domestic violence as a high security problem at their company.
- Violence against women weakens unions and diminishes their ability to build membership or mobilize current members.
- Domestic violence is a safety and health issue for all members since perpetrators often stalk and harass women at their workplace, possibly jeopardizing co-workers as well. Additionally, domestic violence is a work/family issue, since it has devastating economic and personal consequences for the family.
8. Most union members are in support of drug testing (Discriminating characteristics of union members' attitudes toward drug testing in the workplace, Journal of Labor Research, 2007.)
Abstract
Union stewards, general members, & senior management benefit from training on the many manifestations of substance misuse in the workplace, and their impact on working people and their children, contractors, insurers, and owners. Avitar's novel approach to workplace substance abuse management can assist in providing a framework of knowledge as well as implementation monitoring tools.
Joint development of the training curriculum, drug policy, and testing programs, would, however, require the direct involvement of union management. While Avitar can supply the technical components, to gain organization-wide commitment requires high level of participation and support of union leadership. Arguably, this leadership has been lacking in specific cases.
Unions would benefit by working with contractors, owners, insurers, and innovative drug-free workplace service providers to establish comprehensive drug-free workplace policies that include an education component to demonstrate their commitment to a drug-free workplace, support random testing via observed specimen collection, and provide employee assistance programs.
Random testing via oral is convenient, effective, non-invasive, and targets "on-the-job" drug misuse. Unlike traditional urine-based testing, oral fluid testing;
1. deters substance misuse
2. reduces accidents, workers comp claims and,
2. improves workforce image and quality.
While Construction Union may be aware of the unresolved, and epidemic problem of substance abuse in the construction sector, they may not be aware that a solution exists and the importance of their playing a leading role in mitigating the issue.
Substance abuse diminishes the ability of unions to build membership and mobilize current members.
- It erodes self-esteem and autonomy and undermines union participation, power, and leadership.
- It damages the solidarity of the union community and weakens its ability to withstand employer "attacks".
1. Unfortunately many contractors, owners, and insurers view unions as an impediment to resolution of the substance abuse in the construction sector. The lack of a comprehensive and effective occupational drug-free workplace approach by Unions contributes ineffective, ad-hoc industry practices. Similarly, the AFL-CIO program requiring urine testing and specific vendors, even further delays positive, pro-active change.
2. Unions must be proactive in efforts to deter the abuse of controlled substances and alcohol on construction sites. Laborers, management, and all related constituencies would benefit by developing and negotiating a drug and alcohol testing template programs for all contractors / owners / insurers.
3. A comprehensive drug-free workplace program MUST include:
random drug testing (via observed collection - traditional urine-based testing is relatively ineffective),
education, and
assistance.
Measurement is crucial to the recognition, treatment, and prevention of substance abuse related occupational injuries, and other negative impacts. Deterrence and identification of substance abuse benefits the individuals, their immediate coworkers, workers throughout the industry, and others exposed to the negative impacts of substance misuse. (insurers, owners, contractors, public).
4. What union members do away from work is a private affair as long as they aren't impaired when reporting to work, however, traditional urine drug testing is contrary to this notion. Neither unions nor employers should not be allowed to dictate behaviors while away from work.
5. Deterrence is the goal, however, detection and assitance are true benefits.
Union MAP's (member assistance programs) are underutilized (not used 60% of the time). MAPs serve members as well as health & MMwelfare funds, contractors, owners, alike.
- MAPs help laborers & families access to assistance most needed for personal problems/issues
- MAPs control costs (lack of care created costs far exceeding MAP cost).
Labor organizations can only offer assistance to their members on a variety of health, welfare, and safety issues, including substance use disorders, only if aware of the problem.
Sources and Additional Information:
1. 50% of abuse detected now involves prescription drugs, esp. pain relievers. The abuse / misuse of many popular prescription pain releivers is not tested via traditional DOT-based urine testing.
2. While approximately 15%- 20% of construction workers abuse drugs, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics survey significantly underestimate the incidence of work related injuries and illnesses. The United States does not have a comprehensive national surveillance system for occupational injuries and illnesses. Lacking this system, major sources of US occupational health data include the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) annual survey of occupational injuries and illnesses, workers' compensation records, and physician reporting systems. Data produced by these systems have been described as fragmentary, unreliable, and inconsistent. Moreover, they have been shown to underestimate the incidence of workrelated injuries, illnesses, and even fatalities by as much as several hundred percent. (Occupational injury and illness surveillance: Conceptual filters explain underreporting; Azaroff, Lenore S; Levenstein, Charles; Wegman, David H American Journal of Public Health 09-01-2002 )
3. 77% of adults with substance abuse disorders are employed - Results From the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 05-4062. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, September 2005, p. 72.
4. LIUNA MAPs save money - Detroit, first-quarter 2003 data indicate that the LAP saves the fund about $175,000 annually over the likely cost of service to members if no MAP existed. In Southern Illinois, drug expenditures for the first two quarters since MAP usage was mandated are running more than 50 percent below the previous year's average. In Massachusetts, since the MAP was established in 1991, the Fund has saved about $8.8 million in average length of service and per diem costs for in-patient care.
5. Substance use disorders affect people from all walks of life, workers & families. According to a 2005 Hazelden Foundation survey, more than 69 percent of employed people indicated that if a family member were struggling with abuse or addiction, it would negatively affect their ability to concentrate and be productive at work. In fact, 36 percent of people who are employed admitted that at least one of their coworkers had been distracted, less productive, or missed work because of alcohol/drug abuse or addiction within their family.
6. A key message for labor organizations to communicate to employers is that treatment for substance use disorders has substantial benefits for businesses. Reported job problems, including incomplete work, absenteeism, tardiness, work-related injuries, mistakes, and disagreements with supervisors, are cut by an average of 75 percent among employees who have received treatment for substance use disorders. Furthermore, treatment has a benefit-to-cost ratio of 7:1, with substance use disorder treatment costing $1,583 on average and having a monetary benefit to society of nearly $11,487.
7. Domestic violence is directly related to substance abuse. Despite the obvious importance of involving unions in domestic violence prevention with men, little works has been done is this area. This may reflect fears that unions would not be receptive to addressing domestic violence. Senior office holders within some unions have been hesitant to apply their leadership to this issue, for various reasons. Sometimes union leadership has not understood how widespread domestic violence is. Sometimes they have argued that it is a private matter best left to the couple affected. At other times they have expressed concern but felt pessimistic about their ability to do anything about it. And on other occasions they have felt torn between their desire to protect a worker from disciplinary action or job loss and their conviction that domestic violence is wrong.
- It is every employer's legal responsibility to ensure safety in the workplace. Domestic violence compromises the well-being, job performance, and productivity of valuable employees. Many of the attitudes and gender roles that increase men's risk of using domestic violence also predispose men to other high risk behaviors, such as drug and alcohol abuse, workplace violence, or taking unnecessary safety risks to demonstrate "toughness" to peers.
- Domestic violence is a leading cause of workplace violence; it also creates safety and health risks to everyone in the workplace:
- Since almost one in four women is affected by domestic violence, we can make a conservative estimate that 10% of employees may be affected by domestic violence.
- 24% of abused women said they were either late or missed days of work due to abuse
- 54% of abused women missed up to three full days of work per month.
- 94% of corporate security directors surveyed rank domestic violence as a high security problem at their company.
- Violence against women weakens unions and diminishes their ability to build membership or mobilize current members.
- Domestic violence is a safety and health issue for all members since perpetrators often stalk and harass women at their workplace, possibly jeopardizing co-workers as well. Additionally, domestic violence is a work/family issue, since it has devastating economic and personal consequences for the family.
8. Most union members are in support of drug testing (Discriminating characteristics of union members' attitudes toward drug testing in the workplace, Journal of Labor Research, 2007.)
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Drugged Driving - A Leading Cause of Death - SAMHSA 2008 REPORT
Impaired driving is the #1 cause of deaths from all other causes among persons aged 3 to 33.
5% percent (approximately 10 million drivers) of Americans drove under the influence of illicit drugs in the past year
Highest drugged driving rates
District of Columbia (7.0 percent),
Rhode Island (6.8 percent),
Massachusetts (6.4 percent),
Montana (6.3 percent), and
Wyoming (6.2 percent).
Illicit drugs, as defined above, includes marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), inhalants, hallucinogens, heroin, or prescription-type drugs used nonmedically.
15% of Americans drove under the influence of alcohol.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Benefits of Oral Fluid / Saliva Point-of-Care Testing
Protein map of human spit created
By Julie Steenhuysen 27 minutes ago
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. researchers have identified all 1,116 unique proteins found in human saliva glands, a discovery they said on Tuesday could usher in a wave of convenient, spit-based diagnostic tests that could be done without the need for a single drop of blood.
As many as 20 percent of the proteins that are found in saliva are also found in blood, said Fred Hagan, a researcher at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York who worked on the study.
"This is potentially a large field that has many clinical implications in the area of disease diagnostics," said Hagan, whose work was published in the Journal of Proteome Research.
The researchers hope saliva-based tests could be used to diagnose cancer, heart disease, diabetes and a number of other conditions.
"To be able to diagnose disease using saliva, you really have to have a comprehensive understanding of the saliva proteome," Hagan said in a telephone interview.
Like a genome, which lists all of the genes in an organism, a proteome is a complete map of proteins. While genes provide the instruction manual, proteins carry out the instructions by regulating cellular processes.
Researchers from five universities -- the University of Rochester, The Scripps Research Institute, the University of Southern California, The University of California San Francisco and the University of California Los Angeles -- sought to determine the complete set of proteins secreted by the major salivary glands.
BLOOD, SPIT AND TEARS
They collected saliva from 23 healthy men and women of several races. They tested saliva samples using some form of mass spectrometry, which determines the identity of proteins based on measurements of their mass and charge.
They compared their findings with recent protein maps of human blood and tears.
Early analysis has already turned up a number of proteins with known roles in Alzheimer's, Huntington's and Parkinson's diseases; breast, colorectal and pancreatic cancer and diabetes.
Most of the proteins were part of signaling pathways, which are key to the body's response to system wide diseases.
Hagan said the work should accelerate the development of new tools for tracking disease throughout the body.
Already there are saliva-based antibody tests to detect human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, and hepatitis infections, Hagan said. He said this protein map will provide new targets.
"Monitoring disease as well as drug use could be more easily done with saliva as opposed to blood or urine," he said.
Other groups are working on a saliva-based test for breast cancer that would detect a protein fragment from the HER2 protein. Hagan said such tests could eventually replace uncomfortable and costly mammograms.
"We envision in the future spitting in a tube and looking for a marker like this breast cancer marker. It would be much easier to do, potentially at home," he said.
"Given that we've made this information publicly available, we fully expect a number of research groups will be picking their favorite targets and developing their own tests. That is the intent -- to create a wealth of data to stimulate more research and increase the chances of producing better diagnostic tests," Hagan said.
(Editing by Maggie Fox and Mohammad Zargham)
By Julie Steenhuysen 27 minutes ago
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. researchers have identified all 1,116 unique proteins found in human saliva glands, a discovery they said on Tuesday could usher in a wave of convenient, spit-based diagnostic tests that could be done without the need for a single drop of blood.
As many as 20 percent of the proteins that are found in saliva are also found in blood, said Fred Hagan, a researcher at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York who worked on the study.
"This is potentially a large field that has many clinical implications in the area of disease diagnostics," said Hagan, whose work was published in the Journal of Proteome Research.
The researchers hope saliva-based tests could be used to diagnose cancer, heart disease, diabetes and a number of other conditions.
"To be able to diagnose disease using saliva, you really have to have a comprehensive understanding of the saliva proteome," Hagan said in a telephone interview.
Like a genome, which lists all of the genes in an organism, a proteome is a complete map of proteins. While genes provide the instruction manual, proteins carry out the instructions by regulating cellular processes.
Researchers from five universities -- the University of Rochester, The Scripps Research Institute, the University of Southern California, The University of California San Francisco and the University of California Los Angeles -- sought to determine the complete set of proteins secreted by the major salivary glands.
BLOOD, SPIT AND TEARS
They collected saliva from 23 healthy men and women of several races. They tested saliva samples using some form of mass spectrometry, which determines the identity of proteins based on measurements of their mass and charge.
They compared their findings with recent protein maps of human blood and tears.
Early analysis has already turned up a number of proteins with known roles in Alzheimer's, Huntington's and Parkinson's diseases; breast, colorectal and pancreatic cancer and diabetes.
Most of the proteins were part of signaling pathways, which are key to the body's response to system wide diseases.
Hagan said the work should accelerate the development of new tools for tracking disease throughout the body.
Already there are saliva-based antibody tests to detect human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, and hepatitis infections, Hagan said. He said this protein map will provide new targets.
"Monitoring disease as well as drug use could be more easily done with saliva as opposed to blood or urine," he said.
Other groups are working on a saliva-based test for breast cancer that would detect a protein fragment from the HER2 protein. Hagan said such tests could eventually replace uncomfortable and costly mammograms.
"We envision in the future spitting in a tube and looking for a marker like this breast cancer marker. It would be much easier to do, potentially at home," he said.
"Given that we've made this information publicly available, we fully expect a number of research groups will be picking their favorite targets and developing their own tests. That is the intent -- to create a wealth of data to stimulate more research and increase the chances of producing better diagnostic tests," Hagan said.
(Editing by Maggie Fox and Mohammad Zargham)
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
School Drug Testing
Bethlehem Schools Adopt Drug Testing Policy
Anyone looking to work in the Bethlehem Area School District will now have to take a drug test.
Monday night, the school board voted to approve a pre-employment drug testing policy. Starting immediately, new and prospective employees will have to get tested before they can work.
The policy was proposed after Nitschmann Middle School principal John Acerra was arrested on drug charges.
Loretta Leeson: "A drug test doesn't always screen everything but I think we're taking the right steps to at least protecting the children in the district and other employees in the district."
One board member has requested looking into testing all employees.
Source: http://wfmz.com/view/?id=228306
Anyone looking to work in the Bethlehem Area School District will now have to take a drug test.
Monday night, the school board voted to approve a pre-employment drug testing policy. Starting immediately, new and prospective employees will have to get tested before they can work.
The policy was proposed after Nitschmann Middle School principal John Acerra was arrested on drug charges.
Loretta Leeson: "A drug test doesn't always screen everything but I think we're taking the right steps to at least protecting the children in the district and other employees in the district."
One board member has requested looking into testing all employees.
Source: http://wfmz.com/view/?id=228306
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.
On-site Oral Fluid / Saliva Drug Screens - Accurate
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
A comparison between instant and laboratory oral fluid analysis among arrestees. Yacoubian GS; Wish ED.
Research studies that collect biological measures of drug use have traditionally utilized laboratory urinalysis.
A comparison between instant and laboratory oral fluid analysis among arrestees. Yacoubian GS; Wish ED.
Research studies that collect biological measures of drug use have traditionally utilized laboratory urinalysis.
Several recent studies have also documented the utility of laboratory oral fluid (OF) analysis.
A new method of drug testing -- instant OF technology -- may offer a quicker, equally accurate alternative to laboratory OF assays.
To date, however, no field studies have compared the two methods.
In the current study, an instant OF test (Avitar ORALscreen (TM)) was administered to adult arrestees surveyed through Maryland's Substance Abuse Need for Treatment among Arrestees (SANTA) study.
Following a research interview, a second OF sample was collected (Avitar ORALconfirm (TM)) and shipped to the manufacturer's laboratory for analysis.
The Avtiar ORALscreen instant OF test was:
96% sensitive and 83% specific for cocaine,
100% sensitive and 75% specific for opiates, and
100% sensitive and 94% specific for marijuana.
Copyright 2006, Haight-Ashbury Publishing
Reference Source: Yacoubian GS; Wish ED. A comparison between instant and laboratory oral fluid analysis among arrestees. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 38(2): 207-210, 2006. (10 refs.)
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Courts Uphold Workplace Drug Testing - Once Again
Alberta Court of Appeal ruling upholds construction workplace drug testing
(Source: Canadian News)
EDMONTON - Construction and energy companies are happy with an Alberta court ruling that upholds the right of employers to test workers for drugs.
The Alberta Court of Appeal's decision overturned a lower court judgment that said Kellogg, Brown & Root Co. discriminated against a man in 2002 when it fired him from an oilsands project near Fort McMurray after he tested positive for marijuana.
John Chiasson, who admitted to being a recreational pot smoker, filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which ruled against him. The commission said there needs to be a balance between an individual's human rights and the needs of an employer in protecting others.
But Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sheilah Martin then ruled in his favour. She said he should have been treated the same as someone with a drug addiction, which is considered a disability in human rights case law.
The panel of three Appeal Court justices disagreed. The judges said it is legitimate for Kellogg, Brown & Root to presume that people who use drugs at all are a safety risk in an already dangerous workplace.
"We see this case as no different than that of a trucking or taxi company which has a policy requiring its employees to refrain from the use of alcohol for some time before the employee drives one of the employer's vehicles," the justices wrote.
"Extending human rights protections to situations resulting in placing the lives of others at risk flies in the face of logic."
Kellogg, Brown & Root, one of the largest construction firms in the world, was helping to build an expansion to Syncrude Canada's plant at the time of Chiasson's case and is still active in the oilsands.
Andrew Robertson, a lawyer for the company, said the Appeal Court's decision is important to energy and construction industries.
"It is refreshing to see the Alberta Court of Appeal factor in risk management in safety-sensitive workplaces in a circumstance when there had been a recent focus on human rights issues," he said.
Heather Browne, a spokeswoman for Texas-based Kellogg, Brown & Root, hailed the ruling.
"KBR is a leader in workplace safety, and maintaining that commitment is the company's top priority," Browne said Wednesday.
"The court ruling upholds that commitment and we look forward to continuing our work in that regard."
Robertson noted that the Alberta appeal justices did not follow an Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in a similar case that said employees who test positive for drugs are to be dealt with as if they have an addiction even if they don't.
He said courts in provinces outside of Alberta and Ontario hearing similar cases will now have two different precedents to refer to.
Commission lawyer Janice Ashcroft said the Court of Appeal ruling will be reviewed before determining whether to seek leave to have the case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
"It is important to employers and employees to clarify what is the role of human rights when it comes to drug testing," Ashcroft said.
"This affects a lot of people and it is important. The commission does have a duty to ensure that the rights of all Albertans - both employers and employees - are balanced in this respect."
During the original court case, officials with oilsands giant Syncrude testified that the company's lost-time rate from accidents has dropped in part because of drug and alcohol testing.
Syncrude, Suncor, Albian Sands and other major oilsands heavyweights test their employees for drugs before they are allowed on jobsites.
Kara Flynn, a spokeswoman for Syncrude, said that in a broad sense, the Appeal Court ruling supports the company's drug-testing policy and goals.
"Any judicial decisions that support that are greatly appreciated," she said.
The impact of the ruling is already starting to ripple beyond Alberta's boundaries.
Phil Hochstein, president of the Independent Contractors and Business Association in British Columbia, said while workplace drug testing is common on major projects in Alberta, it is the exception in B.C.
He expects that is going to change.
"I think that workplace testing of construction workers is probably an issue whose time has come," he said from Vancouver.
"I think this case is going to spur more of this jobsite testing, not only on big industrial jobs, but on commercial and institutional jobs throughout the country."
(Source: Canadian News)
EDMONTON - Construction and energy companies are happy with an Alberta court ruling that upholds the right of employers to test workers for drugs.
The Alberta Court of Appeal's decision overturned a lower court judgment that said Kellogg, Brown & Root Co. discriminated against a man in 2002 when it fired him from an oilsands project near Fort McMurray after he tested positive for marijuana.
John Chiasson, who admitted to being a recreational pot smoker, filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which ruled against him. The commission said there needs to be a balance between an individual's human rights and the needs of an employer in protecting others.
But Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sheilah Martin then ruled in his favour. She said he should have been treated the same as someone with a drug addiction, which is considered a disability in human rights case law.
The panel of three Appeal Court justices disagreed. The judges said it is legitimate for Kellogg, Brown & Root to presume that people who use drugs at all are a safety risk in an already dangerous workplace.
"We see this case as no different than that of a trucking or taxi company which has a policy requiring its employees to refrain from the use of alcohol for some time before the employee drives one of the employer's vehicles," the justices wrote.
"Extending human rights protections to situations resulting in placing the lives of others at risk flies in the face of logic."
Kellogg, Brown & Root, one of the largest construction firms in the world, was helping to build an expansion to Syncrude Canada's plant at the time of Chiasson's case and is still active in the oilsands.
Andrew Robertson, a lawyer for the company, said the Appeal Court's decision is important to energy and construction industries.
"It is refreshing to see the Alberta Court of Appeal factor in risk management in safety-sensitive workplaces in a circumstance when there had been a recent focus on human rights issues," he said.
Heather Browne, a spokeswoman for Texas-based Kellogg, Brown & Root, hailed the ruling.
"KBR is a leader in workplace safety, and maintaining that commitment is the company's top priority," Browne said Wednesday.
"The court ruling upholds that commitment and we look forward to continuing our work in that regard."
Robertson noted that the Alberta appeal justices did not follow an Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in a similar case that said employees who test positive for drugs are to be dealt with as if they have an addiction even if they don't.
He said courts in provinces outside of Alberta and Ontario hearing similar cases will now have two different precedents to refer to.
Commission lawyer Janice Ashcroft said the Court of Appeal ruling will be reviewed before determining whether to seek leave to have the case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
"It is important to employers and employees to clarify what is the role of human rights when it comes to drug testing," Ashcroft said.
"This affects a lot of people and it is important. The commission does have a duty to ensure that the rights of all Albertans - both employers and employees - are balanced in this respect."
During the original court case, officials with oilsands giant Syncrude testified that the company's lost-time rate from accidents has dropped in part because of drug and alcohol testing.
Syncrude, Suncor, Albian Sands and other major oilsands heavyweights test their employees for drugs before they are allowed on jobsites.
Kara Flynn, a spokeswoman for Syncrude, said that in a broad sense, the Appeal Court ruling supports the company's drug-testing policy and goals.
"Any judicial decisions that support that are greatly appreciated," she said.
The impact of the ruling is already starting to ripple beyond Alberta's boundaries.
Phil Hochstein, president of the Independent Contractors and Business Association in British Columbia, said while workplace drug testing is common on major projects in Alberta, it is the exception in B.C.
He expects that is going to change.
"I think that workplace testing of construction workers is probably an issue whose time has come," he said from Vancouver.
"I think this case is going to spur more of this jobsite testing, not only on big industrial jobs, but on commercial and institutional jobs throughout the country."
Monday, December 24, 2007
Big Rig Drivers Beat Drug Tests?
Can Big Rig Drivers Beat Drug Tests?
By Robert ArnoldPOSTED: 10:03 am CST December 20, 2007UPDATED: 12:46 pm CST
December 22, 2007HOUSTON -- Local 2 investigates potentially dangerous loopholes in federal drug testing laws. Our hidden cameras expose a flawed system that can allow drug addicts to get behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler or even a school bus. Local 2 investigative reporter Robert Arnold shows us how what we uncovered now has Congress and the industry demanding change.
We sent our hidden cameras to a Houston drug testing facility where we signed up to take an official Department of Transportation drug test. Federal law requires every driver to get a drug test before they're allowed to drive an 18-wheeler, a school bus or any kind of commercial vehicle.
But before Local 2 went for the test, we were able to order drug-free urine off the Internet.The kit Local 2 purchased came with a tube of dehydrated urine, a vial and a small heater. We mixed the powdered urine with water then used the heater to bring the sample up to the temperature of the human body.At the collection facility, Arnold was ordered to take off his sport coat and place the contents of his pockets in a secure locker. That was the extent of the search, which meant no one at the facility knew Arnold had the vial of mail-order urine hidden as he entered the bathroom.Once inside the bathroom, Arnold was allowed to close and lock the door, which allowed him to use the vial of mail-order urine as his sample for the drug test.Arnold was then sent to a bathroom to provide a urine specimen for drug test.A few days later the results of Arnold's drug test came back negative. The mail-order urine passed with no problems at all.
The facility Local 2 tested did absolutely nothing wrong. Employees followed every procedure they are required to follow when collecting a specimen for a Department of Transportation drug test. Yet, Local 2 still found it easy to beat the test."Your investigation shows how easy it is to circumvent the law," said U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, who sits on Congress' Transportation Committee."Those regulations were written based on the premise that the person giving the sample was going to be honest about it," said Poe. "That's not the world we live in."Poe said what concerns him is if Arnold had been a drug user, then that negative test would still allow him to drive an 18-wheeler, a school bus or any kind of commercial vehicle."
When it's so easy to circumvent the law, the law becomes meaningless," said Poe."Whatever needs to be done to tighten the regulations to ensure that we don't have anyone slip through the cracks like you did, then I think that needs to be addressed," said Van O'Neal, the head of Houston Community College's truck driving school.
O'Neal's program is one of the largest in the country and requires 50 percent of students and faculty to undergo random drug tests. He says that's why Congress has to tighten the regulations."Those policies must be followed, not need to be followed, but I believe must be followed to ensure that our roadways are safe," O'Neal said.Congress is promising to come up with tougher regulations because what Local 2 did was not an isolated case. A report from the Government Accountability Office shows federal investigators also circumvented drug testing laws at several facilities. The report even warns Congress it impossible to determine how many drivers have been able to beat the federally required drug test.Federal law also requires trucking companies to randomly test employees to hopefully catch those who may have beat the test the first time. But after Local 2 Investigates combed through tens of thousands of federal violations, we found not everyone is following the law.
By Robert ArnoldPOSTED: 10:03 am CST December 20, 2007UPDATED: 12:46 pm CST
December 22, 2007HOUSTON -- Local 2 investigates potentially dangerous loopholes in federal drug testing laws. Our hidden cameras expose a flawed system that can allow drug addicts to get behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler or even a school bus. Local 2 investigative reporter Robert Arnold shows us how what we uncovered now has Congress and the industry demanding change.
We sent our hidden cameras to a Houston drug testing facility where we signed up to take an official Department of Transportation drug test. Federal law requires every driver to get a drug test before they're allowed to drive an 18-wheeler, a school bus or any kind of commercial vehicle.
But before Local 2 went for the test, we were able to order drug-free urine off the Internet.The kit Local 2 purchased came with a tube of dehydrated urine, a vial and a small heater. We mixed the powdered urine with water then used the heater to bring the sample up to the temperature of the human body.At the collection facility, Arnold was ordered to take off his sport coat and place the contents of his pockets in a secure locker. That was the extent of the search, which meant no one at the facility knew Arnold had the vial of mail-order urine hidden as he entered the bathroom.Once inside the bathroom, Arnold was allowed to close and lock the door, which allowed him to use the vial of mail-order urine as his sample for the drug test.Arnold was then sent to a bathroom to provide a urine specimen for drug test.A few days later the results of Arnold's drug test came back negative. The mail-order urine passed with no problems at all.
The facility Local 2 tested did absolutely nothing wrong. Employees followed every procedure they are required to follow when collecting a specimen for a Department of Transportation drug test. Yet, Local 2 still found it easy to beat the test."Your investigation shows how easy it is to circumvent the law," said U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, who sits on Congress' Transportation Committee."Those regulations were written based on the premise that the person giving the sample was going to be honest about it," said Poe. "That's not the world we live in."Poe said what concerns him is if Arnold had been a drug user, then that negative test would still allow him to drive an 18-wheeler, a school bus or any kind of commercial vehicle."
When it's so easy to circumvent the law, the law becomes meaningless," said Poe."Whatever needs to be done to tighten the regulations to ensure that we don't have anyone slip through the cracks like you did, then I think that needs to be addressed," said Van O'Neal, the head of Houston Community College's truck driving school.
O'Neal's program is one of the largest in the country and requires 50 percent of students and faculty to undergo random drug tests. He says that's why Congress has to tighten the regulations."Those policies must be followed, not need to be followed, but I believe must be followed to ensure that our roadways are safe," O'Neal said.Congress is promising to come up with tougher regulations because what Local 2 did was not an isolated case. A report from the Government Accountability Office shows federal investigators also circumvented drug testing laws at several facilities. The report even warns Congress it impossible to determine how many drivers have been able to beat the federally required drug test.Federal law also requires trucking companies to randomly test employees to hopefully catch those who may have beat the test the first time. But after Local 2 Investigates combed through tens of thousands of federal violations, we found not everyone is following the law.
Friday, October 5, 2007
" New " Building Construction and Construction Trades Department BCTD
For Safety Professionals attempting to innovate and improve efforts can be frustrating, largely due to the fact that politics can easily supersede logic.
That said, while potentially well-intentioned, the "new" Building and Construction Trades Department - BCTD drug testing program ( which oddly requires outdated and relatively ineffective urine-based testing as well as the use of a specific laboratory, third party administrator, and their specific product and services ) represents a step backwards ...
not forward ,
more importantly, however, this archaic structure does NOT serve the best interests of unions, union members, contractors, insurers, or owners.
The Need for Change: Substance Abuse in the Construction Sector
We all know that a drug free workplace is a safe workplace and the union skilled trades and contractors were ahead of their time years 16 years ago, when urine-based drug testing was introduce by innovators as evidence by the MUST program, LEAD, and others.
However, times change, the drugs of choice change and the numbers of ways to “beat” the tests have changed.
It’s time again for the union skilled trades and contractors to leap ahead of the national status quo.
Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation to improve safety and reduce workers compensation costs through the implementation of on-site oral fluid / saliva drug screening.
The construction industry played a key role in driving these changes, especially in Hawaii. Organized labor in particular, as well as contractors, owners, and insurers recognized the following:
Drug abuse in the construction sector is as bad, if not worse than ever,
Effective drug testing, especially random drug testing is required to truly manage workplace substance abuse,
Observed specimen collection, convenience, and low cost are mandatory to ensure compliance.
It's time again for union's to put politics aside and address the issue from from a safety point of view:
Why drug test? Simple.
While 10% of employees aged 18 – 49 years abuse drugs (not including alcohol), the construction industry runs 2x-3x this rate.
With over 50% of reportable job-site accidents linked to substance abuse, it’s clear that employee safety and the corporate bottom line are sufficient reasons to implement a drug free workplace program.
A need for change
Pre-employment drug testing has become an intelligence test.
Access to the internet has made defeating drug tests an easy task. Workers are able to get information on how to “flush” their system; adulterate samples; and there are even products like the Whizinator, which uses synthetic urine undetectable by current drug testing methods, designed to defeat observed urine collection.
Random drug testing, post-incident and reasonable suspicion modes are required components of any comprehensive, effective safety program.
The goal of any drug / alcohol policy is deterrence vs. “catching” employees.
Random testing has consistently demonstrated to be singularly effective in reducing on-the-job substance abuse.
Any effective testing mode must involve direct observation of specimen collection. But observed urine collection is embarrassing and degrading to both the observed and the observer.Arguably, there are more instances of drug abusers defeating unobserved techniques, such as traditional urine-based testing, than there are “positives”.
Just look at nationwide statistics for validation. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of drug abusers are employed. Furthermore most drug testing (approx. 90%) involves traditional urine laboratory-based pre-employment testing.
Oral fluid works
Oral fluid tests are cheaper, faster and easier to use than urinalysis… and unlike urine, can not be easily defeated.
Random testing via on-site oral fluid is fast, provides results within 5-15 minutes, and averages $20 per test. It has the additional advantage of detecting current, vs. historical drug use. Oral fluid tests typically detect from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days for most drugs (for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, the maximum is 24 hours.).
Urine testing can not detect drugs for up to the first several hours and is only an indicator of historical drug use. Furthermore, for THC, detection can go back as far as 30 days.
Do you as an employer really care what an otherwise dependable employee does at his/her home on the weekend?
Do you even have a right to know?
“This measure (on-site oral fluid drug testing) provides a cost effective on-the-job alternative to laboratory tests that can be costly and difficult to schedule."- Aiona, Lt. Governor, Hawaii
Also look at the true costs of urine-based random testing.
In many cases our current program requires we send our employees off site for random testing. The cost involved includes not only the hourly labor rate, probably $50/hour with benefits, but the productivity loss also. The end result is that a typical off-site urine test is truly costing a job about $300 per test, and the effectiveness is questionable at best.On-site oral fluid based testing works.
Here are actual results from a contractor who switched from urine-based to oral fluid-based drug screening:
Where do we go from here?
Occupational health, safety, and risk management professionals must assist in driving change. This groups and only this group knows what truly happens every day on our job sites.
At the end of day, they “get it”.
It’s time for safety professionals to join with all constituencies to update current drug and alcohol free workplace programs to assure compliance and effectiveness.
It’s also time for the union skilled trades and contractors to again lead the charge in effecting change.
It’s time to implement oral fluid-based testing techniques at a few “pilot sites” and demonstrate the advantage of effective drug testing programs vs. the status quo.
References:
2006 United States Department of Health – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency (SAMSHA) National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NHSDA)- Office of Applied Studies. (2007) Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4293, NSDUH Series H-32). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Peter N. Cholakis and Roger Bruce (July 2007) Drug Testing in the Workplace – A look at oral fluid-based testing. Professional Safety Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers, July 2007, 31-36
That said, while potentially well-intentioned, the "new" Building and Construction Trades Department - BCTD drug testing program ( which oddly requires outdated and relatively ineffective urine-based testing as well as the use of a specific laboratory, third party administrator, and their specific product and services ) represents a step backwards ...
not forward ,
more importantly, however, this archaic structure does NOT serve the best interests of unions, union members, contractors, insurers, or owners.
The Need for Change: Substance Abuse in the Construction Sector
We all know that a drug free workplace is a safe workplace and the union skilled trades and contractors were ahead of their time years 16 years ago, when urine-based drug testing was introduce by innovators as evidence by the MUST program, LEAD, and others.
However, times change, the drugs of choice change and the numbers of ways to “beat” the tests have changed.
It’s time again for the union skilled trades and contractors to leap ahead of the national status quo.
Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation to improve safety and reduce workers compensation costs through the implementation of on-site oral fluid / saliva drug screening.
The construction industry played a key role in driving these changes, especially in Hawaii. Organized labor in particular, as well as contractors, owners, and insurers recognized the following:
Drug abuse in the construction sector is as bad, if not worse than ever,
Effective drug testing, especially random drug testing is required to truly manage workplace substance abuse,
Observed specimen collection, convenience, and low cost are mandatory to ensure compliance.
It's time again for union's to put politics aside and address the issue from from a safety point of view:
Why drug test? Simple.
While 10% of employees aged 18 – 49 years abuse drugs (not including alcohol), the construction industry runs 2x-3x this rate.
With over 50% of reportable job-site accidents linked to substance abuse, it’s clear that employee safety and the corporate bottom line are sufficient reasons to implement a drug free workplace program.
A need for change
Pre-employment drug testing has become an intelligence test.
Access to the internet has made defeating drug tests an easy task. Workers are able to get information on how to “flush” their system; adulterate samples; and there are even products like the Whizinator, which uses synthetic urine undetectable by current drug testing methods, designed to defeat observed urine collection.
Random drug testing, post-incident and reasonable suspicion modes are required components of any comprehensive, effective safety program.
The goal of any drug / alcohol policy is deterrence vs. “catching” employees.
Random testing has consistently demonstrated to be singularly effective in reducing on-the-job substance abuse.
Any effective testing mode must involve direct observation of specimen collection. But observed urine collection is embarrassing and degrading to both the observed and the observer.Arguably, there are more instances of drug abusers defeating unobserved techniques, such as traditional urine-based testing, than there are “positives”.
Just look at nationwide statistics for validation. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of drug abusers are employed. Furthermore most drug testing (approx. 90%) involves traditional urine laboratory-based pre-employment testing.
Oral fluid works
Oral fluid tests are cheaper, faster and easier to use than urinalysis… and unlike urine, can not be easily defeated.
Random testing via on-site oral fluid is fast, provides results within 5-15 minutes, and averages $20 per test. It has the additional advantage of detecting current, vs. historical drug use. Oral fluid tests typically detect from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days for most drugs (for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, the maximum is 24 hours.).
Urine testing can not detect drugs for up to the first several hours and is only an indicator of historical drug use. Furthermore, for THC, detection can go back as far as 30 days.
Do you as an employer really care what an otherwise dependable employee does at his/her home on the weekend?
Do you even have a right to know?
“This measure (on-site oral fluid drug testing) provides a cost effective on-the-job alternative to laboratory tests that can be costly and difficult to schedule."- Aiona, Lt. Governor, Hawaii
Also look at the true costs of urine-based random testing.
In many cases our current program requires we send our employees off site for random testing. The cost involved includes not only the hourly labor rate, probably $50/hour with benefits, but the productivity loss also. The end result is that a typical off-site urine test is truly costing a job about $300 per test, and the effectiveness is questionable at best.On-site oral fluid based testing works.
Here are actual results from a contractor who switched from urine-based to oral fluid-based drug screening:
Where do we go from here?
Occupational health, safety, and risk management professionals must assist in driving change. This groups and only this group knows what truly happens every day on our job sites.
At the end of day, they “get it”.
It’s time for safety professionals to join with all constituencies to update current drug and alcohol free workplace programs to assure compliance and effectiveness.
It’s also time for the union skilled trades and contractors to again lead the charge in effecting change.
It’s time to implement oral fluid-based testing techniques at a few “pilot sites” and demonstrate the advantage of effective drug testing programs vs. the status quo.
References:
2006 United States Department of Health – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency (SAMSHA) National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NHSDA)- Office of Applied Studies. (2007) Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4293, NSDUH Series H-32). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Peter N. Cholakis and Roger Bruce (July 2007) Drug Testing in the Workplace – A look at oral fluid-based testing. Professional Safety Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers, July 2007, 31-36
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Construction Safety - Drug Testing - AGC - Michigan - MUST
The Need for Change:Drug Testing in Construction
Lynn A. Corlett, C.S.P.
We all know that a drug free workplace is a safe workplace and the Michigan union skilled trades and contractors were ahead of their time when the MUST drug screening program was implemented 16 years ago in 1991.
However, times change, the drugs of choice change and the numbers of ways to “beat” the tests have changed. It’s time again for the union skilled trades and contractors to leap ahead of the national status quo.
Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation to improve safety and reduce workers compensation costs through the implementation of on-site oral fluid / saliva drug screening.
The construction industry played a key role in driving these changes, especially in Hawaii. Organized labor in particular, as well as contractors, owners, and insurers recognized the following:
Drug abuse in the construction sector is as bad, if not worse than ever,
Effective drug testing, especially random drug testing is required to truly manage workplace substance abuse,
Observed specimen collection, convenience, and low cost are mandatory to ensure compliance.
This article attempts to address this from the construction industry’s point of view:
Why should every construction site drug test?
Where do we go from here?
Why drug test?
Simple.
While 10% of employees aged 18 – 49 years abuse drugs (not including alcohol), the construction industry runs 2x-3x this rate.
With over 50% of reportable job-site accidents linked to substance abuse, it’s clear that employee safety and the corporate bottom line are sufficient reasons to implement a drug free workplace program.
A need for change
Pre-employment drug testing has become an intelligence test. Access to the internet has made defeating drug tests an easy task. Workers are able to get information on how to “flush” their system; adulterate samples; and there are even products like the Whizinator, which uses synthetic urine undetectable by current drug testing methods, designed to defeat observed urine collection.
Random drug testing, post-incident and reasonable suspicion modes are required components of any comprehensive, effective safety program. The goal of any drug / alcohol policy is deterrence vs. “catching” employees. Random testing has consistently demonstrated to be singularly effective in reducing on-the-job substance abuse.
Any effective testing mode must involve direct observation of specimen collection. But observed urine collection is embarrassing and degrading to both the observed and the observer.Arguably, there are more instances of drug abusers defeating unobserved techniques, such as traditional urine-based testing, than there are “positives”. Just look at nationwide statistics for validation. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of drug abusers are employed. Furthermore most drug testing (approx. 90%) involves traditional urine laboratory-based pre-employment testing. Oral fluid worksOral fluid tests are cheaper, faster and easier to use than urinalysis… and unlike urine, can not be easily defeated.
Random testing via on-site oral fluid is fast, provides results within 5-15 minutes, and averages $20 per test. It has the additional advantage of detecting current, vs. historical drug use. Oral fluid tests typically detect from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days for most drugs (for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, the maximum is 24 hours.). Urine testing can not detect drugs for up to the first several hours and is only an indicator of historical drug use. Furthermore, for THC, detection can go back as far as 30 days. Do you as an employer really care what an otherwise dependable employee does at his/her home on the weekend? Do you even have a right to know?
Also look at the true costs of urine-based random testing.
In many cases our current program requires we send our employees off site for random testing. The cost involved includes not only the hourly labor rate, probably $50/hour with benefits, but the productivity loss also. The end result is that a typical off-site urine test is truly costing a job about $300 per test, and the effectiveness is questionable at best.
On-site oral fluid based testing works.
Where do we go from here?
Occupational health, safety, and risk management professionals must lead the charge to effect change. We know what truly happens every day on our job sites. At the end of day, we “get it”. It’s time for us to update our current drug and alcohol free workplace program.
It’s time for the Michigan union skilled trades and contractors to again lead the charge in effecting change.
It’s time to implement oral fluid-based testing techniques at a few “pilot sites” and demonstrate the advantage of effective drug testing programs vs. the status quo.
References:2006 United States Department of Health – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency (SAMSHA) National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NHSDA)- Office of Applied Studies. (2007) Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4293, NSDUH Series H-32). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.Peter N. Cholakis and Roger Bruce (July 2007) Drug Testing in the Workplace – A look at oral fluid-based testing. Professional Safety Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers, July 2007, 31-36.
Lynn A. Corlett, C.S.P.
We all know that a drug free workplace is a safe workplace and the Michigan union skilled trades and contractors were ahead of their time when the MUST drug screening program was implemented 16 years ago in 1991.
However, times change, the drugs of choice change and the numbers of ways to “beat” the tests have changed. It’s time again for the union skilled trades and contractors to leap ahead of the national status quo.
Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation to improve safety and reduce workers compensation costs through the implementation of on-site oral fluid / saliva drug screening.
The construction industry played a key role in driving these changes, especially in Hawaii. Organized labor in particular, as well as contractors, owners, and insurers recognized the following:
Drug abuse in the construction sector is as bad, if not worse than ever,
Effective drug testing, especially random drug testing is required to truly manage workplace substance abuse,
Observed specimen collection, convenience, and low cost are mandatory to ensure compliance.
This article attempts to address this from the construction industry’s point of view:
Why should every construction site drug test?
Where do we go from here?
Why drug test?
Simple.
While 10% of employees aged 18 – 49 years abuse drugs (not including alcohol), the construction industry runs 2x-3x this rate.
With over 50% of reportable job-site accidents linked to substance abuse, it’s clear that employee safety and the corporate bottom line are sufficient reasons to implement a drug free workplace program.
A need for change
Pre-employment drug testing has become an intelligence test. Access to the internet has made defeating drug tests an easy task. Workers are able to get information on how to “flush” their system; adulterate samples; and there are even products like the Whizinator, which uses synthetic urine undetectable by current drug testing methods, designed to defeat observed urine collection.
Random drug testing, post-incident and reasonable suspicion modes are required components of any comprehensive, effective safety program. The goal of any drug / alcohol policy is deterrence vs. “catching” employees. Random testing has consistently demonstrated to be singularly effective in reducing on-the-job substance abuse.
Any effective testing mode must involve direct observation of specimen collection. But observed urine collection is embarrassing and degrading to both the observed and the observer.Arguably, there are more instances of drug abusers defeating unobserved techniques, such as traditional urine-based testing, than there are “positives”. Just look at nationwide statistics for validation. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of drug abusers are employed. Furthermore most drug testing (approx. 90%) involves traditional urine laboratory-based pre-employment testing. Oral fluid worksOral fluid tests are cheaper, faster and easier to use than urinalysis… and unlike urine, can not be easily defeated.
Random testing via on-site oral fluid is fast, provides results within 5-15 minutes, and averages $20 per test. It has the additional advantage of detecting current, vs. historical drug use. Oral fluid tests typically detect from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days for most drugs (for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, the maximum is 24 hours.). Urine testing can not detect drugs for up to the first several hours and is only an indicator of historical drug use. Furthermore, for THC, detection can go back as far as 30 days. Do you as an employer really care what an otherwise dependable employee does at his/her home on the weekend? Do you even have a right to know?
Also look at the true costs of urine-based random testing.
In many cases our current program requires we send our employees off site for random testing. The cost involved includes not only the hourly labor rate, probably $50/hour with benefits, but the productivity loss also. The end result is that a typical off-site urine test is truly costing a job about $300 per test, and the effectiveness is questionable at best.
On-site oral fluid based testing works.
Where do we go from here?
Occupational health, safety, and risk management professionals must lead the charge to effect change. We know what truly happens every day on our job sites. At the end of day, we “get it”. It’s time for us to update our current drug and alcohol free workplace program.
It’s time for the Michigan union skilled trades and contractors to again lead the charge in effecting change.
It’s time to implement oral fluid-based testing techniques at a few “pilot sites” and demonstrate the advantage of effective drug testing programs vs. the status quo.
References:2006 United States Department of Health – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency (SAMSHA) National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NHSDA)- Office of Applied Studies. (2007) Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4293, NSDUH Series H-32). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.Peter N. Cholakis and Roger Bruce (July 2007) Drug Testing in the Workplace – A look at oral fluid-based testing. Professional Safety Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers, July 2007, 31-36.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Significant Change in Substance Testing Laws
Significant Changes to Substance Abuse Testing Laws
Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation in support of workplace drug testing, specifically relative to oral fluid-based/saliva drug on-site screening, and workers compensation premium credits. These actions highlight the need for effective drug-free workplace programs as well convenient drug screening technologies that can be applied consistently, across all modes of testing, especially, however, for random, post-incident, and reasonable suspicion.
It is critical that drug-free workplace safety initiatives are enhanced for the betterment of the American workplace as a whole: employers, employees and families, insurors, etc.
Drug abuse is as bad as it has ever been in our places of employment as well as school systems, and hopefully, these new statutes are a sign of a commitment to change.
Our society cannot continue to sweep America's drug abuse problem under the rug. Abuse of prescription drugs, especially pain-relievers, has superseded marijuana and is is a dangerous trend world-wide.
Arguably, “recreational” marijuana use outside of the workplace may have little, if any, impact to employers or employees, excluding the obvious legal issues. The non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, however, in addition to being potentially lethal, commonly leads to addiction and even escalates to heroin use. The safety and wellness aspect of prescription drug abuse is a very serious issue that must be addressed.
Hawaii
A law that became effective on July 1, 2007, now allows employers to perform on-the-job drug testing using instant, on-site oral fluid/saliva drug screening devices. Oral fluid tests are cheaper, faster and easier to use than urinalysis, hopefully leading to more widespread and consistent drug testing programs.
While it may surprise many, the construction industry and locals unions in particular strongly advocate the new legislation as a means to replace the typical, more expensive laboratory-based urine drug testing. With oral fluid, initial results are available in minutes, and observing the sample collection mitigates the prevalent practice of drug abusers “beating the test” via sample adulteration or substitution. Urine laboratory testing typically required the expensive practice of sending employees off-site to a clinic or laboratory, a process that takes at least 3-4 hours with results available for 24-48 hours. As noted by Lt. Governor Aiona of Hawaii, "Drug and alcohol abuse remain a problem in Hawaii's workforce. The law will go a long way towards helping to promote a drug-free workplace. This measure provides a cost effective on-the-job alternative to laboratory tests that can be costly and difficult to schedule."According to the U.S. Department of Labor, drug or alcohol abuse is involved in the majority of fatal accidents in the workplace. These laws represent an effort by the State Government to make the workplace safer for everyone.Although the new law permitting oral drug testing was effective on July 1, 2007, in many cases collective bargaining agreements will have to be updated before companies can start using the non-FDA approved tests. This procedure isn't expected to take long, however, since the unions - as well as management and the State Government - are in favor of the new law. According to union sources, they welcome the improved safety and working conditions that the tests will introduce.
One representative of the Pacific Resource Partnership, an alliance between contractors and the Carpenters Union Local 745, said construction workers and the industry pushed for the new tests as a way to decrease costs and save time while keeping job sites safe."This is something that I think is going to be a great asset for employers, especially in the construction industry where public safety is a huge factor," said Lt. Governor Aiona.
Georgia
In a similar bill, Governor Perdue of Georgia recently signed Senate Bill 96 into law which provides the option for companies throughout Georgia to drug test employees using an on-site rapid result oral fluid/saliva devices.
As in Hawaii, initial qualitative results are available in minutes, and if “negative” an employee goes back to work. Any “non-negative” (preliminary positive) results are sent to a lab for a GC/MS or LC/MS/MS quantitative analytical testing prior to substantive employers’ actions such as mandatory enrollment in employee assistance programs/counseling, removal from safety-sensitive duties, and/or suspension.
Per Governor Perdue, the bill which overwhelmingly passed the State Senate and House of Representatives, "had the strong support of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and many other advocates of safe and drug-free workplaces that protect not only business owners, but employees and consumers as well.Companies using on-site oral fluid/saliva screens will now receive a 7.5 percent reduction in their worker's compensation insurance premiums. Summary
Drug testing in the workplace is not only legal, it may very well be part of an employer’s responsibility to provide a safe workplace for employees. The United Supreme Court has ruled that drug testing, including random drug testing, is legal. Furthermore, per the Department of Labor, OSHA, it is an employer’s responsibility to provide a safe workplace for all employees.
Assuming a comprehensive safety program is in place, a safe workplace is simply not possible without also maintaining a comprehensive drug-free workplace program inclusive of employee education, drug testing, and employee assistance/counseling.
Regardless of the specimen type used such as oral fluid/saliva, urine, or hair, it is critical that specimen collection be directly observed, and that drug testing is done on a regular basis. This includes; random, post-incident, reasonable suspicion, and return-to-duty mode. Pre-employment testing, while currently the most widely practiced of modes, is referred to by many experts as an “intelligence test”, and should not be relied upon exclusively.
When combined with education, and employee assistance programs, comprehensive drug-free workplace programs consistently result in a reduction in reportable site accidents of up to 50% or more, as well as multiple other safety and “bottom-line” benefits.
Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation in support of workplace drug testing, specifically relative to oral fluid-based/saliva drug on-site screening, and workers compensation premium credits. These actions highlight the need for effective drug-free workplace programs as well convenient drug screening technologies that can be applied consistently, across all modes of testing, especially, however, for random, post-incident, and reasonable suspicion.
It is critical that drug-free workplace safety initiatives are enhanced for the betterment of the American workplace as a whole: employers, employees and families, insurors, etc.
Drug abuse is as bad as it has ever been in our places of employment as well as school systems, and hopefully, these new statutes are a sign of a commitment to change.
Our society cannot continue to sweep America's drug abuse problem under the rug. Abuse of prescription drugs, especially pain-relievers, has superseded marijuana and is is a dangerous trend world-wide.
Arguably, “recreational” marijuana use outside of the workplace may have little, if any, impact to employers or employees, excluding the obvious legal issues. The non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, however, in addition to being potentially lethal, commonly leads to addiction and even escalates to heroin use. The safety and wellness aspect of prescription drug abuse is a very serious issue that must be addressed.
Hawaii
A law that became effective on July 1, 2007, now allows employers to perform on-the-job drug testing using instant, on-site oral fluid/saliva drug screening devices. Oral fluid tests are cheaper, faster and easier to use than urinalysis, hopefully leading to more widespread and consistent drug testing programs.
While it may surprise many, the construction industry and locals unions in particular strongly advocate the new legislation as a means to replace the typical, more expensive laboratory-based urine drug testing. With oral fluid, initial results are available in minutes, and observing the sample collection mitigates the prevalent practice of drug abusers “beating the test” via sample adulteration or substitution. Urine laboratory testing typically required the expensive practice of sending employees off-site to a clinic or laboratory, a process that takes at least 3-4 hours with results available for 24-48 hours. As noted by Lt. Governor Aiona of Hawaii, "Drug and alcohol abuse remain a problem in Hawaii's workforce. The law will go a long way towards helping to promote a drug-free workplace. This measure provides a cost effective on-the-job alternative to laboratory tests that can be costly and difficult to schedule."According to the U.S. Department of Labor, drug or alcohol abuse is involved in the majority of fatal accidents in the workplace. These laws represent an effort by the State Government to make the workplace safer for everyone.Although the new law permitting oral drug testing was effective on July 1, 2007, in many cases collective bargaining agreements will have to be updated before companies can start using the non-FDA approved tests. This procedure isn't expected to take long, however, since the unions - as well as management and the State Government - are in favor of the new law. According to union sources, they welcome the improved safety and working conditions that the tests will introduce.
One representative of the Pacific Resource Partnership, an alliance between contractors and the Carpenters Union Local 745, said construction workers and the industry pushed for the new tests as a way to decrease costs and save time while keeping job sites safe."This is something that I think is going to be a great asset for employers, especially in the construction industry where public safety is a huge factor," said Lt. Governor Aiona.
Georgia
In a similar bill, Governor Perdue of Georgia recently signed Senate Bill 96 into law which provides the option for companies throughout Georgia to drug test employees using an on-site rapid result oral fluid/saliva devices.
As in Hawaii, initial qualitative results are available in minutes, and if “negative” an employee goes back to work. Any “non-negative” (preliminary positive) results are sent to a lab for a GC/MS or LC/MS/MS quantitative analytical testing prior to substantive employers’ actions such as mandatory enrollment in employee assistance programs/counseling, removal from safety-sensitive duties, and/or suspension.
Per Governor Perdue, the bill which overwhelmingly passed the State Senate and House of Representatives, "had the strong support of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and many other advocates of safe and drug-free workplaces that protect not only business owners, but employees and consumers as well.Companies using on-site oral fluid/saliva screens will now receive a 7.5 percent reduction in their worker's compensation insurance premiums. Summary
Drug testing in the workplace is not only legal, it may very well be part of an employer’s responsibility to provide a safe workplace for employees. The United Supreme Court has ruled that drug testing, including random drug testing, is legal. Furthermore, per the Department of Labor, OSHA, it is an employer’s responsibility to provide a safe workplace for all employees.
Assuming a comprehensive safety program is in place, a safe workplace is simply not possible without also maintaining a comprehensive drug-free workplace program inclusive of employee education, drug testing, and employee assistance/counseling.
Regardless of the specimen type used such as oral fluid/saliva, urine, or hair, it is critical that specimen collection be directly observed, and that drug testing is done on a regular basis. This includes; random, post-incident, reasonable suspicion, and return-to-duty mode. Pre-employment testing, while currently the most widely practiced of modes, is referred to by many experts as an “intelligence test”, and should not be relied upon exclusively.
When combined with education, and employee assistance programs, comprehensive drug-free workplace programs consistently result in a reduction in reportable site accidents of up to 50% or more, as well as multiple other safety and “bottom-line” benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
