By investing in substance abuse treatment, employers can reduce their overall costs. Substance use disorders cost the nation an estimated $276 billion a year, with much of the cost resulting from lost work productivity and increased healthcare spending.1
Given that 76 percent of people with drug or alcohol problems are employed,2 employers have a major stake in ensuring that employees have access to substance abuse treatment.
DID YOU KNOW?
Replacing an employee costs from 25 percent to almost 200 percent of annual compensation— not including the loss of institutional knowledge, service continuity, and coworker productivity and morale that can accompany employee turnover.4
The average cost per visit for outpatient substance abuse treatment (by far the most frequent form of treatment) in 2002 was $26.72.5
Savings from investing in substance abuse treatment can exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1.6 About 19.2 million U.S. workers (15%) reported using or being impaired by alcohol at work at least once in the past year.3
♦ About 63% of people with substance abuse problems receive outpatient treatment, which minimizes time away from work and costs much less than inpatient treatment.13
Brief intervention among heavy drinkers in one workplace study yielded a three to one return on investment (See chart).14
Providing comprehensive substance abuse health benefits costs just $.06 more per member than imposing a $10,000 limit on those benefits.15
EMPLOYER’S ACTION AGENDA
Offer employees health insurance that provides comprehensive
benefits for substance abuse treatment, including therapy, medications, and recovery support.
Ensure that company wellness or Employee Assistance Programs* include substance abuse screening, education, and support for recovery.
www.navigent3.com
Drug-Free Workplace Solutions
References
1 H. Harwood, D. Fountain, and G. Livermore, “The Economic Costs of
Alcohol & Drug Abuse in the U.S. 1992,” Rockville, MD: National Institute on
Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1998.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/economiccosts/index.html . (Accessed 5-9-08).
2 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA),
Office of Applied Studies (OAS), National Survey on Drug Use and Health 2005 and
2006, Table 5.8A, Rockville, MD: 2007. http://oas.samhsa.gov/
nsduh/2k6nsduh/tabs/Sect5peTabs1to13.pdf . (Accessed 5-7-08).
3 M.R. Frone, “Prevalence and distribution of alcohol use and impairment in the
workplace: A U.S. national survey,” J Stud. Alcohol, 67, 1: 147-156, January 2006.
4 F. Leigh Branham, “Six Truths about Employee Turnover,” NY: American
Management Association. http://www.nichebenefits.com/Library/sixtruths.pdf
(Accessed 5-19-08).
5 SAMHSA, OAS, The DASIS Report. Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS) Cost
Study, 2004. http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/costs/costs.htm. (Accessed 5-23-08).
6 National Institute on Drug Abuse, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A
Research-Based Guide, FAQ11, Bethesda, MD: NIDA, 1999. http://www.nida.
nih.gov/podat/PODAT6.html#FAQ11 . (Accessed 5-9-08).
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Costs of Workplace Drug & Alcohol Abuse
Every employer has a major stake in promoting employee access to substance abuse treatment. That’s because:
♦ 76 percent of people with drug or alcohol problems are employed.11
Drug and alcohol problems in the workplace cost American employers billions of dollars each year.1
Understanding the impact of substance abuse on the workplace—and the benefits of facilitating workers’ access to treatment—can help employers build a healthier workforce and a healthier bottom line.
Substance Abuse Imposes Significant Burdens on the Workplace
While some of the costs associated with employee drug or alcohol problems are easy to quantify, others are much harder to measure. All, however, are real.
♦ Healthcare costs are excessive. Healthcare costs for employees with alcohol problems are twice as high as those for other employees.2
♦ Risk increases. People who abuse drugs or alcohol are three and one-half times more likely to be involved in a workplace accident, resulting in increased workers’ compensation and disability claims.3
♦ Other workers suffer. Fourteen percent of employees in one survey said they had to re-do work within the preceding year because of a co-worker’s drinking.4
♦ Employed relatives pay. More than half of working family members of alcoholics report that their own ability to function at work and at home was negatively impacted by their family member's drinking. 8 Absenteeism increases. Alcoholism is estimated to cost 500 million lost workdays annually.9 Employment is less stable. Individuals who are current illicit drug users are more than twice as likely (12.3 percent) as those who are not (5.1 percent) to have changed employers three or more times in the past year.10
SMALL INVESTMENTS CAN YIELD BIG SAVINGS
Xerox workers who participated in a wellness program and limited their alcohol consumption enabled the company to reduce its costs for both healthcare and health insurance over four years, achieving a five to one return on investment. 5
One company found that workers who used its Employee Assistance Program (EAP)* for help with mental health and substance use problems had fewer inpatient medical days than those who participated only in the company’s medical insurance plan. In addition, the company averaged $426,000 in savings each year on mental health and substance abuse treatment as a result of employees’ participation in the EAP. 6
Research has shown that savings from investing in substance abuse treatment exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1.7
By promoting substance abuse education and access to treatment in the workplace, employers can realize many money-saving benefits:
Reduced absenteeism and job turnover;
Improved worker productivity and job performance;
Reduced healthcare costs; and
Fewer workplace accidents and disability claims14
www.navigent3.com
Drug-Free Workplace Solutions
Accurate Oral Fluid Technology
References
1 H. Harwood, D. Fountain, & G. Livermore, The Economic Costs of
Alcohol & Drug Abuse in the U.S. 1992. Rockville, MD: National Institute
on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,
1998. http://www. nida.nih.gov/economiccosts/ index.html .
(Accessed 5-9-08).
2 Schneider Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, Substance
Abuse, The Nation's Number One Health Problem, Princeton, NJ: Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation, February 2001: 70.
3 US DHHS, SAMHSA, 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse,
Rockville, MD: US DHHS, 2000.
4 T.W. Mangione et al., “New Perspectives for Worksite Alcohol
Strategies: Results from a Corporate Drinking Study,” Boston, MA: JSI
Research and Training Institute, 1998.
5 S. Musich, D. Napier and D.W. Edington, “The Association of Health
Risks with Worker's Compensations Costs,” Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine. 43, 6: 534-541 (June 2001).
6 T.C. Blum and P.M. Roman, “Cost-Effectiveness and Preventive Implications
of EAPs,” U.S. DHHS, SAMHSA, Pub. No. RP0907, 1995.
7 National Institute on Drug Abuse, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment:
A Research-Based Guide, FAQ11. Bethesda, MD, 1999. http://www.nida.
nih.gov/ podat/PODAT6.html#FAQ11 . (Accessed 5-9-08).
8 Al-Anon Family Groups, Inc., “1999 Al-Anon/Alateen Membership
Survey and Al-Anon Membership Assessment Results: Final Report,”
March 2000.
9 U.S. DHHS, SAMHSA, Worker Drug Use and Workplace Policies and
Programs: Results from the 1994 and 1997 National Household Survey on Drug
Abuse. Rockville, MD: U. S. DHHS, 1999. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov
/NHSDA/A-11/TOC.htm . (Accessed 5-23-08)
10 S.L. Larson, J. Eyerman, M.S. Foster, and J.C. Gfroerer, Worker
Substance Use and Workplace Policies and Programs. Rockville, MD:
SAMHSA, OAS, 2007). http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/work2k7/
work.htm#6.1 . (Accessed 5-16-08).
11 SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and
Health 2005 and 2006: Table 5.8A. Rockville, MD, 2007.
http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh /2k6nsduh/tabs/Sect5peTabs1to13.pdf .
(Accessed 5-7-08).
12 Chart: Harwood, Fountain, & Livermore, 1998. Op Cit.
13 Ensuring Solutions to Alcohol Problems, analysis of 2001 National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse data from SAMHSA, 2002.
Washington, DC: DHHS.
14 SAMHSA, CSAT, “Substance Abuse in Brief: Effective Treatment
Saves Money,” Rockville, MD: SAMHSA CSAT, January, 1999.
♦ 76 percent of people with drug or alcohol problems are employed.11
Drug and alcohol problems in the workplace cost American employers billions of dollars each year.1
Understanding the impact of substance abuse on the workplace—and the benefits of facilitating workers’ access to treatment—can help employers build a healthier workforce and a healthier bottom line.
Substance Abuse Imposes Significant Burdens on the Workplace
While some of the costs associated with employee drug or alcohol problems are easy to quantify, others are much harder to measure. All, however, are real.
♦ Healthcare costs are excessive. Healthcare costs for employees with alcohol problems are twice as high as those for other employees.2
♦ Risk increases. People who abuse drugs or alcohol are three and one-half times more likely to be involved in a workplace accident, resulting in increased workers’ compensation and disability claims.3
♦ Other workers suffer. Fourteen percent of employees in one survey said they had to re-do work within the preceding year because of a co-worker’s drinking.4
♦ Employed relatives pay. More than half of working family members of alcoholics report that their own ability to function at work and at home was negatively impacted by their family member's drinking. 8 Absenteeism increases. Alcoholism is estimated to cost 500 million lost workdays annually.9 Employment is less stable. Individuals who are current illicit drug users are more than twice as likely (12.3 percent) as those who are not (5.1 percent) to have changed employers three or more times in the past year.10
SMALL INVESTMENTS CAN YIELD BIG SAVINGS
Xerox workers who participated in a wellness program and limited their alcohol consumption enabled the company to reduce its costs for both healthcare and health insurance over four years, achieving a five to one return on investment. 5
One company found that workers who used its Employee Assistance Program (EAP)* for help with mental health and substance use problems had fewer inpatient medical days than those who participated only in the company’s medical insurance plan. In addition, the company averaged $426,000 in savings each year on mental health and substance abuse treatment as a result of employees’ participation in the EAP. 6
Research has shown that savings from investing in substance abuse treatment exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1.7
By promoting substance abuse education and access to treatment in the workplace, employers can realize many money-saving benefits:
Reduced absenteeism and job turnover;
Improved worker productivity and job performance;
Reduced healthcare costs; and
Fewer workplace accidents and disability claims14
www.navigent3.com
Drug-Free Workplace Solutions
Accurate Oral Fluid Technology
References
1 H. Harwood, D. Fountain, & G. Livermore, The Economic Costs of
Alcohol & Drug Abuse in the U.S. 1992. Rockville, MD: National Institute
on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,
1998. http://www. nida.nih.gov/economiccosts/ index.html .
(Accessed 5-9-08).
2 Schneider Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, Substance
Abuse, The Nation's Number One Health Problem, Princeton, NJ: Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation, February 2001: 70.
3 US DHHS, SAMHSA, 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse,
Rockville, MD: US DHHS, 2000.
4 T.W. Mangione et al., “New Perspectives for Worksite Alcohol
Strategies: Results from a Corporate Drinking Study,” Boston, MA: JSI
Research and Training Institute, 1998.
5 S. Musich, D. Napier and D.W. Edington, “The Association of Health
Risks with Worker's Compensations Costs,” Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine. 43, 6: 534-541 (June 2001).
6 T.C. Blum and P.M. Roman, “Cost-Effectiveness and Preventive Implications
of EAPs,” U.S. DHHS, SAMHSA, Pub. No. RP0907, 1995.
7 National Institute on Drug Abuse, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment:
A Research-Based Guide, FAQ11. Bethesda, MD, 1999. http://www.nida.
nih.gov/ podat/PODAT6.html#FAQ11 . (Accessed 5-9-08).
8 Al-Anon Family Groups, Inc., “1999 Al-Anon/Alateen Membership
Survey and Al-Anon Membership Assessment Results: Final Report,”
March 2000.
9 U.S. DHHS, SAMHSA, Worker Drug Use and Workplace Policies and
Programs: Results from the 1994 and 1997 National Household Survey on Drug
Abuse. Rockville, MD: U. S. DHHS, 1999. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov
/NHSDA/A-11/TOC.htm . (Accessed 5-23-08)
10 S.L. Larson, J. Eyerman, M.S. Foster, and J.C. Gfroerer, Worker
Substance Use and Workplace Policies and Programs. Rockville, MD:
SAMHSA, OAS, 2007). http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/work2k7/
work.htm#6.1 . (Accessed 5-16-08).
11 SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and
Health 2005 and 2006: Table 5.8A. Rockville, MD, 2007.
http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh /2k6nsduh/tabs/Sect5peTabs1to13.pdf .
(Accessed 5-7-08).
12 Chart: Harwood, Fountain, & Livermore, 1998. Op Cit.
13 Ensuring Solutions to Alcohol Problems, analysis of 2001 National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse data from SAMHSA, 2002.
Washington, DC: DHHS.
14 SAMHSA, CSAT, “Substance Abuse in Brief: Effective Treatment
Saves Money,” Rockville, MD: SAMHSA CSAT, January, 1999.
Drug Abuse Rising, While Alcohol Use Declines
SAMHSA and the White House improperly use statistics to show a decline in substance abuse, electing to point to lower "positive" rates as determined from urine-based drug testing. This defies logic, as most people are aware that prescription drug abuse is at an all time high, and a component of a worldwide problem.
In reality, drug abusers easily "cheat" urine based testing, and most urine drug tests do not target prescription drug abuse such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, and benzodiazepines.
On the other hand, treatments episode data show a different story. The number of people seeking treatment for drug abuse continues to rise, while those seeking treatment for alcohol misuse is declining.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
False Positives with Urine Drug Tests?
The following have been noted to react and cause "false positive" results with urine drug screens.
Amantadine Amantadine Parkinsonism
Bupropion Wellbutrin & Zyban Antidepressant&Smoking cessation
Chloroquine AralenTreats Malaria
Chlorpromazine Thorazine, Largactil Psychotic disorders
Desipramine Norpramin Antidepressant
Dextroamphetamine Dexedrine Narcolepsy "sleep
Ephedrine Ephedra and Ma Huang Amphetamines
Fenfluramine Fen Phen Diet pill outlawed by FDA Labetalol Labetalol Blood Pressure
Mexiletine Mexitil Cardiovascular
n-acetyl procainamide Procainmide Cardiovascular
Phentremine Adipex/Obenix/Oby-Trim Diet Pills
Propranolol Inderal Cardiovascular
Phencyclidine
(PCP)
Dextromethorphan Dextromethorphan Cough treatment
Diphenhydramine Benadryl Allergies
Thioridazine Mellaril RidarilinCanada Tranquilizer
Venlafaxine Effexor Antidepressant
Amantadine Amantadine Parkinsonism
Bupropion Wellbutrin & Zyban Antidepressant&Smoking cessation
Chloroquine AralenTreats Malaria
Chlorpromazine Thorazine, Largactil Psychotic disorders
Desipramine Norpramin Antidepressant
Dextroamphetamine Dexedrine Narcolepsy "sleep
Ephedrine Ephedra and Ma Huang Amphetamines
Fenfluramine Fen Phen Diet pill outlawed by FDA Labetalol Labetalol Blood Pressure
Mexiletine Mexitil Cardiovascular
n-acetyl procainamide Procainmide Cardiovascular
Phentremine Adipex/Obenix/Oby-Trim Diet Pills
Propranolol Inderal Cardiovascular
Phencyclidine
(PCP)
Dextromethorphan Dextromethorphan Cough treatment
Diphenhydramine Benadryl Allergies
Thioridazine Mellaril RidarilinCanada Tranquilizer
Venlafaxine Effexor Antidepressant
Friday, April 3, 2009
Prescription Pain Reliever Abuse in Schools
SAMHSA Report - United Stated Department of Health and Human Services
12.4 percent of young adults age 18 to 25 used prescription pain relievers nonmedically in the past year.
How did these young adults get these medications?
According to a recent report from SAMHSA's Office of Applied Studies, among young adults age 18 to 25 who used prescription pain relievers nonmedically in the past year, over half (53.0 percent) obtained their most recent pain reliever used nonmedically from a friend or relative for free.
Among young adults age 18 to 25 who used prescription pain relievers nonmedically in the past year and met the criteria for prescription pain reliever dependence or abuse, 37.5 percent obtained their most recent prescription pain relievers for nonmedical purposes for free from a friend or relative, 19.9 percent bought them from a friend or relative, and 13.6 percent obtained them from one doctor.
www.navigent3.com
Oral Fluid-based Drug Free Workplace Solutions
Workplace Drug Testing Primer
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, September 8, 2008
Union Against Drug Testing ?
Source: September 6, 2008, Charleston Gazzette
MSHA: Test coal miners for drugs and alcohol
The White House administration will propose a rule early next week to require drug testing of miners who work in "safety sensitive" jobs in the nation's coal and non-coal mines.
U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration ( MSHA ) officials are pushing for speedy approval of the rule, offering the mining community and the public a tight 30-day comment period - less than half the time provided for two other rules proposed by MSHA this year.
The proposed rule would replace existing standards for drugs and alcohol at metal and non-metal mines with an industry-wide rule that also covers coal operations.
It would designate certain substances - alcohol and a list of controlled substances - that could not be possessed on mine property or used while performing safety-sensitive job duties, unless they were being used according to a valid prescription.
Mine operators would be required to establish an alcohol- and drug-free program, including a written policy, employee education, supervisory training and drug testing for miners in safety-sensitive jobs and their supervisors. Safety-sensitive job duties are defined as "any type of work activity where a momentary lapse of critical concentration could result in an accident, injury or death."
Company policies also must include treatment referrals for miners who violate the policy. The proposed rule also would require those who violate the prohibitions to be removed from the performance of job-sensitive duties until they complete recommended treatment and their alcohol- and drug-free status is confirmed by testing.
"Mining under the best of circumstances can be dangerous," said MSHA chief Richard Stickler, "and the use of alcohol and illegal substances creates additional, unnecessary hazards in the workplace."
MSHA's Federal Register notice did not include any mention of a public hearing on the proposal.
Department of Labor spokesman David James said the agency anticipates receiving a request for a hearing and that MSHA "is preparing to do" such a hearing.
"There will likely be a notice for public hearing published sometime during the public comment period," James said.
Coal industry officials have long sought an MSHA rule to require drug testing of miners, but the United Mine Workers union has questioned the need for such testing and worried about the specifics of how companies would carry out such testing.
Kentucky adopted its own drug-testing program for miners in 2006, and Virginia passed similar rules in 2007. West Virginia has declined to adopt drug-testing requirements for coal miners.
In October 2005, MSHA announced that it was working on such a rule, but after a string of mine disasters in 2006 and 2007, the drug-testing proposal appeared to have been put on the back burner as the agency scrambled to enact numerous safety reforms mandated by Congress.
Then, in early June, MSHA officials submitted their proposed rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for its review. The OMB approved the proposal late last week, records show.
In its proposed rule notice, MSHA said
MSHA cited a study that showed
"Using alcohol and/or drugs can affect a miner's coordination and judgment significantly at a time when he or she needs to be alert, aware and capable of performing tasks where there is a substantial risk of injury to oneself or others," the MSHA notice said.
During a previous comment period, UMW officials questioned whether MSHA had shown the need for a nationwide drug-testing program.
MSHA responded, "Although a subsequent internal [Department of Labor] review of accident reports failed to reveal a significant number of cases where alcohol or drugs were determined to be causative factors, it did reveal a lack of consistency in whether and how alcohol and drug tests are performed and in the investigative process used to determine whether alcohol or drugs may have been factors.
"In fact, currently accident investigations do not routinely include an inquiry into the use of alcohol or drugs and this is a failure that the proposed rule intends to address," MSHA said.
MSHA estimated that the drug-testing rule would cost the mining industry $16 million during its first year and $13 million every year after that.
MSHA: Test coal miners for drugs and alcohol
The White House administration will propose a rule early next week to require drug testing of miners who work in "safety sensitive" jobs in the nation's coal and non-coal mines.
U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration ( MSHA ) officials are pushing for speedy approval of the rule, offering the mining community and the public a tight 30-day comment period - less than half the time provided for two other rules proposed by MSHA this year.
"An alcohol- and drug-free mine program as proposed in this rule will contribute to the prevention of such incidents and provide all miners, regardless of what state they work in and the size of the mine they work for, equal safety protection from working alongside miners under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs on the job,"MSHA said in a proposal scheduled to be published in Monday's Federal Register.
The proposed rule would replace existing standards for drugs and alcohol at metal and non-metal mines with an industry-wide rule that also covers coal operations.
It would designate certain substances - alcohol and a list of controlled substances - that could not be possessed on mine property or used while performing safety-sensitive job duties, unless they were being used according to a valid prescription.
Mine operators would be required to establish an alcohol- and drug-free program, including a written policy, employee education, supervisory training and drug testing for miners in safety-sensitive jobs and their supervisors. Safety-sensitive job duties are defined as "any type of work activity where a momentary lapse of critical concentration could result in an accident, injury or death."
Company policies also must include treatment referrals for miners who violate the policy. The proposed rule also would require those who violate the prohibitions to be removed from the performance of job-sensitive duties until they complete recommended treatment and their alcohol- and drug-free status is confirmed by testing.
"Mining under the best of circumstances can be dangerous," said MSHA chief Richard Stickler, "and the use of alcohol and illegal substances creates additional, unnecessary hazards in the workplace."
MSHA's Federal Register notice did not include any mention of a public hearing on the proposal.
Department of Labor spokesman David James said the agency anticipates receiving a request for a hearing and that MSHA "is preparing to do" such a hearing.
"There will likely be a notice for public hearing published sometime during the public comment period," James said.
Coal industry officials have long sought an MSHA rule to require drug testing of miners, but the United Mine Workers union has questioned the need for such testing and worried about the specifics of how companies would carry out such testing.
Kentucky adopted its own drug-testing program for miners in 2006, and Virginia passed similar rules in 2007. West Virginia has declined to adopt drug-testing requirements for coal miners.
In October 2005, MSHA announced that it was working on such a rule, but after a string of mine disasters in 2006 and 2007, the drug-testing proposal appeared to have been put on the back burner as the agency scrambled to enact numerous safety reforms mandated by Congress.
Then, in early June, MSHA officials submitted their proposed rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for its review. The OMB approved the proposal late last week, records show.
In its proposed rule notice, MSHA said
"a preliminary review of fatal and non-fatal mine accident records revealed a number of instances in which alcohol and drugs or drug paraphernalia were found or reported, or where the post-accident toxicology screen revealed the presence of alcohol or drugs."
MSHA cited a study that showed
more than 13 percent of full-time miners were heavy alcohol users and 7 percent admitted that they had used illicit drugs within the past month.
"Using alcohol and/or drugs can affect a miner's coordination and judgment significantly at a time when he or she needs to be alert, aware and capable of performing tasks where there is a substantial risk of injury to oneself or others," the MSHA notice said.
"Even prescription medications may affect a miner's perception and reaction time. Mining is a complicated and hazardous occupation, and a clear focus on the work at hand is a crucial component of mine safety."
During a previous comment period, UMW officials questioned whether MSHA had shown the need for a nationwide drug-testing program.
MSHA responded, "Although a subsequent internal [Department of Labor] review of accident reports failed to reveal a significant number of cases where alcohol or drugs were determined to be causative factors, it did reveal a lack of consistency in whether and how alcohol and drug tests are performed and in the investigative process used to determine whether alcohol or drugs may have been factors.
"In fact, currently accident investigations do not routinely include an inquiry into the use of alcohol or drugs and this is a failure that the proposed rule intends to address," MSHA said.
MSHA estimated that the drug-testing rule would cost the mining industry $16 million during its first year and $13 million every year after that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
