he typical hair sample is about one and a half inches in length and identifies drug use as far as three months back, as opposed to urinalysis, which typically detects drug use from the past 48 to 72 hours. A hair
sample’s wider window of detection is a distinct advantage for employers looking to identify periodic and habitual drug use by applicants or employees. Hair testing is also much more difficult to adulterate, or tamper with, than urine testing. The collection is, by default, observed since the collector is the individual who cuts the donor’s hair specimen. This observed hair collection eliminates the specimen validity issue that plagues approximately 1 out of every 1000 urine specimens. Hair testing involves using scissors to snip an undetectable sample of head hair, about the diameter of a pencil lead.1
The
process can be considered a less intrusive alternative to urine or blood testing. The sample is placed in a sealed specimen envelope in front of the donor and shipped with custody and control documentation to the laboratory. At the laboratory, the hair is washed to remove external contaminants, and then undergoes a complex chemical process designed to release the drugs
deposited in the hair. Te five types of drugs included in the
hair test are cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine, amphetamines, and marijuana. Like urinalysis, hair testing uses a screening test followed by a confirmation test if the screening indicates the presence of a drug. Confirmation testing uses highly specific analysis techniques which are similar to urinalysis confirmation methods, and are able to precisely and accurately identify the exact drug/metabolite contained within the hair specimen. For employers, especially those with
workers in safety-sensitive positions, it is critical to identify illicit drug users. Not doing so results in lost productivity, threats to employee and public safety, and higher healthcare costs. While illicit drug users can abstain from drug use in the days leading up to a traditional urine drug test in an effort to “beat” the test, hair testing presents a more robust alternative to
traditional types of drug testing. Evaluating 26 datia focus
an organization’s drug screening program to identify potential gaps is particularly valuable in light of the CSA program, which assigns a safety rating to transportation companies. Tough hair testing could be seen as a duplication of effort
since motor carriers still need to perform the mandated urine drug test to satisfy federal testing requirements, statistical analyses compiled by companies who perform both hair and urine testing reveal a critical gap for companies that rely on urine testing alone. Additionally, the November 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Undercover Tests Reveal Significant Vulnerabilities in DOT’s Drug Testing Program2
, disclosed
collection issues that could permit drug users to circumvent detection. Last year, the DOT proposed changes in testing procedures, prompting the American Trucking Association (ATA) to advocate for more aggressive evaluation of hair tests. J.B. Hunt, a top for-hire carrier who continues to partner
with Psychemedics Corporation for hair testing, made the case for the use of hair testing by motor carriers through their own paired hair and urine analysis. From May 2006 to July 2011, the company performed a comparison of 52,652 paired hair and DOT urine tests on the same individuals. The results were astounding, with 3,273 (6.22%) testing positive with hair tests, but only 523 (0.99%) testing positive with urinalysis.
Data provided by Psychemedics Corporation When J.B. Hunt initially implemented pre-employment
hair testing, positive results on the hair tests started out near 15%. This number dropped significantly as it became widely known that J.B. Hunt performs hair testing during the drug
Comparison of Urine and Hair Test Results 52,652 Paired Hair and DOT Urine Tests on the Same Individuals
May 2006 to July 2011 (Positive includes refusal to test)
Urine Positive Positive Rate 523 0.99% Hair Positive Positive Rate 3273 6.22%
1
winter 2012
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46