Clinical Chemistry AACC Online Job Center
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 41: 805-808, 1995;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peat, M. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Peat, M. A.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 41, 805-808, Copyright © 1995 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Financial viability of screening for drugs of abuse

MA Peat
LabOne, Inc., Overland Park, KS 66215, USA.

Urine drug testing is now a common practice in the American workplace; a recent survey indicated that > 90% of companies with > 5000 employees have some type of testing program. These programs have indeed reduced the rate of drug-positive test results; for example, recent data from the Federal Aviation Agency show that the rate for 1993 was 0.82% compared with 0.95% for 1992. Many corporations have stated that urine drug testing, as a component of a substance abuse policy, results in significant savings, e.g., from decreased absenteeism and turnover. The United States Postal Service recently completed a longitudinal study on the economic benefits and found that, over the average tenure of an annual intake of employees, there were savings of more than $100 million. Although this study clearly demonstrates the financial benefits of preemployment drug testing, the decision to test is not based solely on this but also on the regulatory environment and on the potential impact of a major accident attributable to the use of drugs or alcohol in the workplace.


The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. G. Fitzsimons, K. H. Baker, E. Lowenstein, and W. M. Zapol
Random Drug Testing to Reduce the Incidence of Addiction in Anesthesia Residents: Preliminary Results from One Program
Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2008; 107(2): 630 - 635.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J PsychopharmacolHome page
E. J. K. Wadsworth, S. C. Moss, S. A. Simpson, and A. P. Smith
A community based investigation of the association between cannabis use, injuries and accidents
J Psychopharmacol, January 1, 2006; 20(1): 5 - 13.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
M R Levine and W P Rennie
Pre-employment urine drug testing of hospital employees: future questions and review of current literature
Occup. Environ. Med., April 1, 2004; 61(4): 318 - 324.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
J. V. Booth, D. Grossman, J. Moore, C. Lineberger, J. D. Reynolds, J. G. Reves, and D. Sheffield
Substance Abuse Among Physicians: A Survey of Academic Anesthesiology Programs
Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2002; 95(4): 1024 - 1030.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.