| |
Employing safe
and substance-free employees, as well as maintaining a
substance-free workforce, are high priorities for business owners
and human resource administrators. Statistics show that
implementing regulatory drug and alcohol screenings can potentially
save a company hundreds of thousand of dollars in medical and
accident claims.
When considering making drug and alcohol testing mandatory rather
than voluntary, an employer can ask himself or herself whether the
cost of implementing regular or pre-employment drug and alcohol
screening is more beneficial than the risk of expensive accidents
caused by a substance abuser on the job. Potential losses
result from worker’s compensation claims, medical expenses, cost in
productivity, and costs from on-site accidents to both substance
abuser and co-workers. Approximately 35 to 50 percent of all
workers’ compensation claims are related to substance abuse in the
workplace and injuries on and off the job, costing employers about
$200 billion annually.
Employing a substance abuser is a risky move. According to the Ohio
Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, 77 percent of illicit drug users
and 90 percent of alcoholics are employed, mainly in industries such
as construction, commercial truck driving, and manufacturing.
Substance abusers also can affect a company’s productivity – from
poor job performance to missed days of work. Statistics from the
Ohio agency show the effects are both dramatic and expensive:
Productivity: Substance users are 33 to 50
percent less productive.
Absenteeism: Substance users are absent about
three weeks or more per year and are tardy three times more often
than non-users.
Accidents: Substance users are three to four
times more likely to have an accident on the job and five times more
likely to file a worker’s compensation claim.
Medical claims: Substance users file 300 to 400
percent more costly medical claims.
Employee theft: An estimated 50-80 percent of
all pilferage, theft and loss are due to substance-using employees.
Unproductive in Certain Industries?
Some counter that regulatory drug screening is not as cost-effective
for some industries. The statistics do not always apply for
all industries, and the positive results are not large enough to
justify implementing a regular screening policy. An article
from the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment from Jan. 28, 2005,
suggests that abuse-based absenteeism is, at best, an incidental
cost to businesses and human resource dollars to achieve a
substance-free workplace.
Another article from Health Services Research from February 2004
concluded that positive impacts resulting from a drug-free workplace
program or regulatory testing could only be attributed to certain
industries, with the strongest evidence of an effect in the
construction industry. The estimated net cost savings for the
construction industry were positive, although small in magnitude.
Some industries have strict regulations for drug and alcohol
screening polices. For example, in the commercial truck
driving industry it is critical that any physician who performs
Department of Transportation physicals or urine drug screens is
certified according to the DOT’s requirements. If the collector is
not certified, a drug test can be determined invalid if it is ever
challenged at a later date.
Because many collection facilities and occupational medicine
practices are still unaware of the requirements set by the DOT,
fleet owners and commercial truck drivers must research the
credentials of those performing the collections.
Finding a qualified collector also is crucial in other industries.
The collector should be certified and trained in the drug screening
process and have direct contact with the employee. Without the
collector’s ensuring the integrity of the collection sample and
collection process, the test itself may lose credibility.
This was proven in a case involving a male employee who had a
forklift accident. He did not injure anyone but himself and
caused approximately $50,000 damage to company equipment. The
injured employee underwent urine drug testing according to company
policy and tested positive for marijuana. The employee was
terminated as a result of his company’s drug-free workplace policy.
However, the employee hired an attorney and discovered the collector
at the medical facility was not certified to federal regulations.
This made the drug test invalid, forcing the company to rehire the
employee.
As of Jan. 3, 2003, each person conducting a drug test collection
for any employer following federal guidelines must be qualified in
accordance with federal rules. The moral of the story is that
employers must verify that the facility performing urine drug
collections and breath alcohol testing for them has qualified and
certified collectors. Qualified collection facilities should
provide clients with copies of the certifications that collectors
obtain upon completion of the training.
The Importance of MRO Services
Occupational medicine practices that offer alcohol and drug
screening also should have a Medical Review Officer (MRO) available
to assist businesses, as well as labor and government agencies, in
assuring proper and complete compliance with federal regulations
regarding drug and alcohol testing programs. An MRO is a
licensed physician who is responsible for receiving and interpreting
the drug screening results and determining any medical explanation
for positive results.
Proper drug and alcohol screening is also importance to consider
when outsourcing services to vendors, especially when working with a
fleet company to transport products. A business owner or
company executive should check to make sure the fleet is properly
licensed and its drivers have passed numerous drug and alcohol
screening if its vendor cause and accident that is related to
substance use.
Every industry or employer has its own set of circumstances that may
not apply to statistical data. Industries known to have chronic
substance problems for years would benefit greatly by implementing
regulatory drug testing. However, other industries with far
fewer substance abuse problems could be wasting funds.
If an employer or company is contemplating the implementation of a
regulatory drug testing program, is must consider a few things:
whether substance abuse is a problem in the individual setting;
whether testing will address the problem; the costs vs. benefits of
the testing; and any ethical or legal question that might be raised
by the program.
Patricia David, MD, MSPH, is president and medical director of
CorpHealth, a Columbus, Ohio-based, innovative physician-directed
occupational medicine practice. It provides medical services
that emphasize wellness, health maintenance, and injury and disease
prevention. Dr. David was recently appointed as the District
Medical Consultant for the U.S. Department of Labor. She is
also the first physician in Ohio to be a certified DOT Medical
Examiner through the National Academy of DOT Medical Examiners (NADME).
For more information, visit
www.corphealth.org or contact her
at 888-249-0445.
CorpHealth* - wellness programs to enhance
your healthy lifestyle!
* CorpHealth offers
immigration physicals,
pre-placement
physicals, DOT
physicals,
public safety physicals, and
wellness exams, as well as an excellent
executive health program,
toxicology reviews,
health screenings, and
onsite
services.
|
