hospitalized, and have fewer doctor visits. In fact, workers in recovery who received substance-use treatment in the past and have not had a substance-use disorder within the last 12 months miss only 9.5 days annually for illness, injury, or reasons other than vacation and holidays.9 Te typical worker misses about 10.5 days per year. In contrast, workers with substance-use disorders miss nearly 50% more, averaging 14.8 days a year.10 Workers with pain-medication-use disorders miss as much as 29 days per year due to illness and injury.11 And yet, providers and employers


continue to focus their efforts on pre- employment testing. Adding post-accident, reasonable suspicion, follow-up, and random testing easily pays for itself. As a provider, any objection by an employer about the cost of adding this additional testing should be easy to overcome. In simple terms, explain why drug testing not only saves money, it makes sense. Random drug testing not only identifies


drug users at work, but also deters use. Te risk of being selected is oſten just too high to justify drug use when employees consider the possibility of losing their job and income. Te number of random drug tests performed each year varies widely. In fact, the percent can not only vary from employer to employer, but also within a single employer. Tis variance comes with a bonafide reason—safety- sensitive positions being the most prevalent, employers can opt to have a higher percent of tests performed on those employees who pose the greatest safety risk. No mater how many tests are performed, it is critical to include the testing in the policy, use a random selection tool that can withstand legal scrutiny, and make certain employees are aware that they could be subject to random testing at any time. As a provider, random selections and pool maintenance should be a part of your offering.


30 datia focus


Reasonable suspicion, for cause, and


post-accident drug testing are intertwined in many cases. When added to an employer’s policy, these types of testing must be accompanied by employee and supervisor training. Training on how to identify the signs and symptoms of drug use in the workplace provides employers with hundreds of sets of eyes watching for safety concerns, and, ultimately, the employer’s botom line. Whether online or in-person, training is a small investment for this increased visibility. In addition to training on signs and symptoms, it is important that supervisors and employers have standard documentation for incidents leading to a drug test. Providers should have resources for both forms and training as part of their product offering. Finally, with unemployment at an


all-time low and highly skilled workers difficult to find, employers should consider the benefits of allowing workers to return- to-duty. Last chance agreements and follow-up testing programs are designed to return qualified workers to duty while protecting employers through ongoing testing. Best practice is to work with a qualified substance abuse professional (SAP) to determine the frequency and type of test that fits each person best. SAPs are not just for DOT. Tere are qualified organizations that partner with CRs and TPAs to provide this valuable service. In most cases, costs are only incurred when the service is used. ❚


References 1


Cullen KA, Ambrose BK, Gentzke A, et al. Notes from the Field: Increase in e-cigarette use and any tobacco product use among middle and high school students—United States, 2011-2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018; 68:1276-1277.


2


“Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.” The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), September 2016. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/ NSDUH-FFR1-2015/NSDUH-FFR1-2015/NSDUH- FFR1-2015.htm.


3 https://www.nsc.org/forms/substance-use-employer-calculator.


4


“Drugs at Work: What Employers Need to Know.” The National Safety Council. https://www.nsc.org/work-safety/ safety-topics/drugs-at-work.


5 6 https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/.


https://www.kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2017-summary- of-findings/attachment/figure a-12/.


7


https://www.kiplinger.com/article/insurance/T027-C001- S003-cost-of-employer-health-coverage-to-rise-in-2019.html.


8


“Prescription Drug Abuse: What Employers Can Do.” The National Safety Council, 2014. https://www.nsc.org/Portals/0/ Documents/RxDrugOverdoseDocuments/RxKit/EMP- Prescription-Drug-Abuse-What-Employers-Can-Do.pdf.


9


Goplerud, Eric, Hodge, Sarah, Benham, Tess, A Substance Use Cost Calculator for US Employers With an Emphasis on Prescription Pain Medication Misuse. September 20, 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC5671784/.


10


The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/opioids/data.html.


11


https://www.shatterproof.org/co-occurring-disorders- addiction-mental-health.


Nina M. French is the Manag- ing Partner for the Current Consulting Group, with over 26 years of experience in employee screening. Mrs. French has experience in


managing drug-free workplace operations including product development, vendor management, medical review, client ser- vices, account management, marketing, and sales strategy. Her consulting emphasis is on helping screening companies streamline operations, define product portfolios, align core business goals, launch new products, in- crease revenue, and improve client retention. Mrs. French’s experience within the screening industry provides her with the expertise to consult with employers on program design, vendor selection, and best practices. Mrs. French is widely published and speaks at over 40 events each year including client hosted educational trainings, webinars, SAPAA, DA- TIA, NAPBS, iHeart Radio, and SHRM.


©2010–2019 The Current Consulting Group, LLC—No portion of this article may be repro- duced, retransmitted, posted on a website, or used in any manner without the written consent of the Current Consulting Group, LLC. When permission is granted to repro- duce this article in any way, full attribution to the author and copyright holder are required.


spring 2019


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  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56