NISAT Answers Call for Drug Testing in the Workplace

Responding to corporate America’s and government’s increasing desire for drug-free workplaces, a medical diagnostic company is opening a substance-abuse testing center in San Diego to cater exclusively to industrial clients.

The Nichols Institute Substance Abuse Testing Laboratories (NISAT) of San Juan Capistrano officially opens its 17,000-square-foot leased facility Friday, but Senior Vice President Gary Hibler said it has been screening workers and job applicants for its client companies since July.

“The increasing demand for such services by government and business is the sole reason why we’re opening this facility,” Hibler said. Demand for substance testing simply outgrew the capabilities of the American Clinical Laboratories, another Nichols Institute-owned facility in San Diego that previously conducted screenings in the county, he said.

The opening of NISAT and its singular role is an example of how businesses are increasingly accepting and incorporating drug testing programs. Industry observers say that heightened awareness of America’s drug problems, more accurate and thorough testing methods, greater security and confidentiality and establishment of industrywide testing standards have helped the testing become a common business practice.

As government and business leaders take a harder look at the nation’s drug problem, they are discovering that drug abuse drains billions of dollars from companies annually through lost productivity, accidents, theft and absenteeism.

Since 1986, when then-President Reagan issued an executive order to establish a drug-free work force among federal agencies serving the executive branch, the federal government has increasingly encouraged and broadened the application of substance-abuse testing programs.

The private sector has been quick to follow. Now, more than 75% of Fortune 500 companies have some type of substance-abuse testing program.

Industry observers say the business community has been eager to adopt testing to curtail what many believe is a rampant drug problem. According to a 1988 national household survey by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 14.5 million people ages 12 and over reported illegal drug use.

Of those, 70% had full- or part-time jobs, said Jeanne G. Trumble, chief of the workplace policy research branch of the Rockville, Md.-based institute, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It was charged by Congress in 1987 to determine who could test federal employees and to set standards on how they should be tested.

Since such standards were established in April, 1988, the institute has certified 37 laboratories--including the new facility--as competent to test federal workers and applicants. The standards cover the experience and expertise of testing personnel, confidentiality and the security of testing and reporting procedures.

“Several years ago, when you mentioned drugs, people would have said, ‘Not me, not my family, not my workplace,’ ” Trumble said.

“No one can say that anymore. Now people do believe that drugs are a problem, and they want to do something to correct it,” she said. “And I think people are finally beginning to understand that substance-abuse testing is not based on a ‘find ‘em and fire ‘em’ philosophy.

“Given the fact that so many drug users are in the workplace, screening provides an excellent way to identify these troubled workers,” Trumble said. “Of course, this could lead to termination, but most programs have rehabilitation programs. By catching these workers, you have a greater chance of making them productive employees again.

Nowadays, even some labor unions support testing workers suspected of using drugs--as long as companies sponsor rehabilitation programs.

“Greater accuracy and increased confidentiality made testing more palatable to unions,” said Tom Rankin, a lobbyist for the California Labor Federation, which represents all unions in the state that are affiliated with the AFL-CIO. In addition, it serves as the AFL-CIO’s legislative advocate in the Legislature and represents the interests of 2 million workers.

Rankin said unions have also become more receptive to screening because it helps increase safety in the workplace and reduce worker’s compensation costs.

“But we are still opposed to blanket, across-the-board mandatory testing and random testing of workers,” he said. “Testing someone whose performance seems to be affected by drugs is understandable. But testing workers without cause is an unconstitutional invasion of an individual’s privacy.”

Hundreds of cases testing employers’ rights to conduct random drug tests are now before the courts, Trumble said.

Although permitting random testing remains controversial, there is a trend toward testing job applicants, workers who have been involved in accidents and employees who raise a “reasonable suspicion” of drug use.

Indeed, on March 21, the U.S. Supreme Court made two major decisions on the issue: It upheld post-accident testing in the railroad industry and upheld the testing of applicants in a case involving the U.S. Customs Services.

Both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Transportation are in the process of firming up policies aimed at drug-free workplaces.

The transportation policy may be particularly significant because it regulates six major industries--aviation, trucking, urban mass transit, railroad, commercial vessels and pipeline--that employ 4 million people.

“If governments encourage random testing and the courts allow it, you can easily be looking at a $200- to $300-million market in the next three to five years,” said Kenneth C. Bohringer, a senior analyst at Prudential-Bache Securities in New York.

“For example, the Department of Transportation has already implemented regulations to test certain workers and for those who exhibit signs of (drug) use, but if and when random testing is allowed, the market will explode.”

Many drug-free workplace programs resemble federal programs in that they call for a written policy, an education program, a training program for supervisors to help recognize substance abuse, and an employee assistance program.

Laboratories certified by NIDA require that carefully collected urine specimens be screened by using an immunoassay method, an enzymatic procedure that uses antibodies to identify the presence of drugs. If the specimen tests positive, laboratories are required to do a “confirmation” by using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)--a procedure that unmistakably identifies a drug.

“The screening simply tells you, for example, that opiates are present in the specimen,” said Hibler, the senior vice president of NISAT. “But the GC/MS tells you, yes, there is codeine or yes, there is morphine (types of opiates) and tells you how much was found.”

In a positive test, the results are passed on to a medical review officer--a physician with expertise in pharmacology--who reviews the test and contacts the employee to determine if perhaps medical prescription--and not illegal drug use--could be the cause. The review officer works as an independent third party and passes on the results to the employer.

Such a process is required only when laboratories are conducting tests for federal employees. But Hibler said the federal standards have become accepted as the way of doing business in the private sector as well.

“The accuracy of testing was a problem at first, mostly because labs were only screening, but now a second confirmation step is clearly the accepted practice,” Hibler said. “People can lose their jobs because of this. You better have a product that will stand up in court.”

Typically, NISAT charges $30 per screening. Confirmation of a particular drug could cost $60 more. Among NISAT’s clients are Westinghouse, the American Maritime Assn., Science Applications International, Rescue Industries and Amtrak.

The firm, founded in 1971, reported revenue of $90.7 million for fiscal 1988, up from $55.2 million in 1987.