irby,
I'm curious about Prev. I can't find it anywhere. I realize its OTC, but its off my radar. No SEC filings either.
How does a court find that their testing procedure is less invasive?
Or that a company provides "just cause" testing.
What could be less invasive than a sample of hair the diameter of pencil lead?
[Image]
Back to Today's News
Employers Turn to Hair Testing to Detect Drug Abuse
By Sherwood Ross
-------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK, July 15, 1996 (Reuter) -- More
employers are turning to hair testing to detect
drug abuse as an alternative to the standard
urine test.
Since 98 percent of all employees test negative
for drugs, some employers are trying to find a
way around subjecting large employee populations
to urine testing in order to detect a few
abusers.
Well over 90 percent of the millions of drug
abuse tests given each year are based on urine
specimens, industry experts say.
Just one firm, SmithKline Beecham Clinical
Laboratories of Collegeville, Pa., administers
three million urine tests annually.
Hair testing got a boost in April when the
Nevada Supreme Court upheld it as ``a valid
drug-testing methodology.'' The Court rejected a
fired Las Vegas casino employee's claim for
unemployment compensation when her hair test
revealed cocaine.
``Hair testing has arrived,'' insists Raymond
Kubacki, president and chief executive of
Psychemedics, of Cambridge, Mass. ``It is not an
emerging technology.''
Kubacki said his corporate clients feel hair
testing is ''less demeaning and embarrassing''
than asking employees for a urine specimen.
Although a $50 hair test costs employers about
$15 more than the urine test, Kubacki claims
employers save money because hair testing roots
out more abusers.
A typical abuser, he said, can cost an employer
anywhere from $7,000 to $10,000 a year for
''lateness, absenteeism, medical bills and
reduced productivity.''
When Kubacki's firm ran simultaneous hair and
urine tests on 774 employees of a Midwest
manufacturing client, the hair test found 18
percent of them positive; the urine test found
only 2.7 percent.
Diane Younghans, marketing manager for
Associated Pathologists Laboratories of Las
Vegas, a firm that conducts both urine and hair
tests, said because the hair test detects drug
use going back 90 days, her clients ``prefer it
for pre-employment testing.''
Asked whether an employee who shows up able to
work should be discharged for having used a drug
at home months earlier, she replied, ``If you
smoke marijuana one time 30 days ago, chances
are we're not going to find it. There's not that
much drug there.''
She said, ``The hair test will find the addicted
person and the moderate to heavy user.''
Kubacki, however, said the hair test will detect
``whether someone is a light, heavy or moderate
user and are increasing or decreasing (their
drug use) over time.''
One question about hair testing that troubles
employers, said John Lankford, national program
manager for Biosite Diagnostics of San Diego,
Calif., is that ambient marijuana smoke in a
room may be absorbed in the hair of a
non-smoking employee.
Lankford's company, which conducts urine tests,
said it can clear an employee who tests negative
with a urine test within a few hours, saving
employers money and clearing the employee's
reputation.
By contrast, a hair test can require several
days' time to confirm a positive finding.
In a related development, Bob Fogerson, vice
president of PharmChem Laboratories of Menlo
Park, Calif., a major urine testing firm, said
it has just gotten Food & Drug Administration
approval for sweat testing, which it will market
to employers for $35 per test.
This involves taping a bandage-like pad to an
employee's skin for seven days to detect any
drugs used by the wearer.
Sent to a laboratory, drugs will wash off the
pad, yielding a positive result in two to three
days. Premature removal of the patch by the
wearer invalidates the test.
Sweat patches taped to 1,000 people by PharmChem
who were simultaneously given urine tests
``identified four times as many cocaine users
(as did urine samples),'' Fogerson said.
And a simple saliva test for drug abuse which
can be performed easily at the work site is
being developed by U.S. Alcohol Testing Inc. of
Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.
Company Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Robert Stutman, former head of the Drug
Enforcement Administration in New York, declined
to elaborate on the precise techniques to be
used but said, ``We expect to have it in about
two years, including the time required for FDA
approval.''
``Urine testing,'' USAT's Stutman pointed out,
``is the method the courts have accepted up to
this point'' and is approved by the FDA. ``Five
years from now it may be different.''
-------------------------------------------------
Copyright c 1996 Reuters Limited. All rights
reserved. Republication or redissemination of
the contents of this screen are expressly
prohibited without the written consent of
Reuters Limited.
[Image]
Copyright 1996. Hanley-Wood, Inc. All Rights Reserveexcerpt from old (sept,96) Washington Post
I pulled this stat from an AP story a few months back.
A few statistics: The American Management Association reports that in
1987 21.5% of major U.S. companies tested their employees for drugs.
This year, 81.1% do.
irby, please direct us to your sources.
Thanks |
