Hartford Business Journal

www.HartfordBusiness.com • September 4, 2017 • Hartford Business Journal 13 a "five panel" test, and it typically detects heroin, cocaine, marijuana, amphetamine and phencyclidine (known as PCP, or "angel dust"). But the test usually doesn't detect certain opioids, such as oxycodone and hydrocodo- ne, which are addictive and can be abused. C.H. Nickerson's upgraded test can detect those opioids. Overall, C.H. Nickerson has a low num- ber of positive drug trusts possibly because the company has long been known for its testing, and it may discourage drug users from ever applying, Tynan said. The decision to move to a more rigorous drug test was more about caution. "We looked at it and said 'these things are not being checked,' " Tynan said. The increased cost per test is marginal — about $5 more. But the company orders many tests a year, and it does add up, Tynan said. "It does get expensive, but in the long run it's worth it," she said. That's because the costs of dealing with workplace substance abuse can be significant. For example, for a 30-employee construction firm in Connecticut, it's estimated that substance abuse, on aver- age, will cost that employer $13,495 a year, according a substance use employer cost calculator created by the National Safety Council. The calculator takes into account research on employment costs with data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The costs include: $5,440 for lost time or missed workdays; $4,385 for job turn- over and re-training costs; and $3,670 for healthcare expenses. C.H. Nickerson officials said they've been surprised several times over the years to find out that an employee flunked a test. It's sometimes someone they never suspected. "I think a lot of times, addicts have a stigma around them that they are less valuable than other members of society, but the reality is most of the addicts in our society are just like you and I," Tynan said. "They just happen to be injured, or some circumstance in their life opened a door to them, and unfortunately their bodies took over." Tighter oversight C.H. Nickerson isn't alone in its efforts to strengthen its drug-testing program. In fact, drug-testing giant Quest Diag- nostics has noted a steady increase in the percentage of tests that detect a greater number of substances. In 2002, just 2.2 percent of Quest's urine tests on non-federal workers were more substantial than the standard five-panel test. That jumped to 5.6 percent in 2005 and 11.7 percent in 2010. Last year, 18.8 percent of the 6.6 million urine tests Quest performed in the country contained larger panels. "We're clearly seeing more private-sector employers not subject to federal rules includ- ing this broader panel of opiates," said Dr. Barry Sample, Quest's senior director of sci- ence and technology. He attributes the trend generally to increasing concern and awareness of the opioid epidemic. Making a dent Users of prescrip- tion opioids, which can be expensive, sometimes turn to (cheaper and often more potent) heroin when they run out of money or lose their prescription or supplier. Pills remain a concern, but data shows that govern- ment intervention — such as more rigorous prescribing guidelines, doctor- shopping safeguards and other policies — may be having an effect. Quest's 2016 data shows a steep drop in the percentage of U.S. urine screens that came up positive for the prescription opioids hydrocodone, hydromorphone or oxyco- done. In addition, tests that detected heroin plateaued last year after doubling between 2011 and 2015. Sample said it's too early to tell if the heroin decline will become a trend. "It's encouraging, but not too encourag- ing to breathe a sigh of relief," he said A June study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, using data from 59,000 pharmacies, found that opioid prescriptions across the country declined 18 percent between 2010 (a peak year) and 2015, though the amount of the drugs prescribed per capita still remained three times higher than it was in 1999. In Connecticut, nearly every county saw a drop in opioid prescriptions between 2010 and 2015, ranging from 2.7 percent in New London County to 24.7 percent in New Haven County. Hartford County saw a 15.1 percent drop. The exception was Middlesex County, which saw prescribed opioids per capita climb 3.3 percent. However, five of eight counties in the state had higher prescription rates than the national average. And according to recently released data from the Agency for Health- care Research and Quality, Connecticut had one of the highest rates of opioid-related emergency room visits in 2014. Employers must use caution with drug tests By Matt Pilon mpilon@HartfordBusiness.com O n a recent summer morning at the state Department of Labor in Wethersfield, Stephen Lat- tanzio, principal attorney with DOL's Office of Program Policy, schooled about a dozen human resource managers and other professionals about the complex- ities of Connecticut's drug-testing laws. It's a seminar he typically gives once a year. True-or-false questions flash across a screen to quiz attendees on their drug- testing knowledge. Several had counterin- tuitive answers, perhaps none more than the following: "True or false? It's reasonable and legal to test an employee for drugs/alcohol after he or she is involved in an accident at work." The answer is false, thanks to a 1994 federal court case in which a Home Depot employee successfully sued the retailer for forcing him to take a drug test after a workplace accident. The judge in the case, Doyon v. Home Depot, ruled that an accident alone did not amount to reasonable suspicion of drug use. The crux of Lattanzio's message is cau- tion. Just as an impaired employee could cause a costly accident, drug testing an employee when it's not permitted by state law could cost an employer. "Avoiding a lawsuit is the big concern always," Lattanzio said. DOL has purview specifically over urine tests (not hair or saliva tests), and it can fine an employer a modest $300 if it finds the company violated an employee's legal rights. But that relatively tiny fine isn't what matters. "It may provide corroboration to a claim for an improper testing civil suit," he said. "It's the weight that finding will carry in court." The advice from the DOL lawyer? Hire an attorney and make sure your company's policies measure up legally. State Department of Labor attorney Stephen Latanzio (shown right) speaks at a recent medical marijuana in the workplace seminar. CT Employer Costs from Workforce Substance Abuse The National Safety Council and national nonprofit Shatterproof have collaborated with an independent research institution, NORC at the University of Chicago, to design "The Real Cost of Substance Use to Employ- ers" tool, which provides business leaders with specific information about the cost of substance use (includ- ing prescription drug and alcohol abuse, opioid and heroin addiction as well as abuse of other illicit drugs and marijuana) in their workplace based on size of employee base, industry and state. Here are several examples of the annual cost impacts on Connecticut employers. Durable Finance, Insurance, Industry Construction Manufacturing Real Estate # of Employees 30 30 30 Lost time costs $5,440 $4,929 $3,510 Job turnover/re-training costs $4,385 $4,041 $3,975 Healthcare costs $3,670 $2,910 $2,910 Annual total costs to employer $13,495 $11,880 $10,395 Source: The Real Cost of Substance Use to Employers" tool from the National Safety Council Dr. Barry Sample, Quest Diagnostics A board of name badges at C.H. Nickerson's Farmington job site. All of the positions shown are classified as "high-risk, safety-sensitive." PHOTO | CONTRIBUTED PHOTO | ONE PHOTO, SHUTTERSTOCK.COM

• Cover