02.08.09
Posted in General at 4:47 pm by administrator
In an effort to educate the transportation industry and others that provide service in accordance with the Department’s drug and alcohol testing programs, our staff participates in conferences, trainings and seminars throughout the country. Events, dates, locations, and registration information will appear here as it becomes available.
- November 20, 2008
Published in today’s Federal Register is a Final Rule dealing with 40.67(b) – direct observation for return-to- duty and follow-up testing. That section of the regulation will read, pending further order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as follows:
§ 40.67 When and how is a directly observed collection conducted?
*****
(b) As an employer, you may direct a collection under direct observation of an employee if the drug test is a return-to-duty test or a follow-up test.
Permalink
09.07.08
Posted in General, Press Release at 9:26 am by administrator
The Bush 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.
By Ken Ward Jr. - Staff writer
The Bush 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 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.
Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw…@wvgazette.com or 348-1702. Charleston Gazette
Permalink
09.05.08
Posted in General at 2:38 pm by administrator
Drug screening collection sites continue to show a lack of training in the federal guidelines. Employers are urged to know and use qualified collectors for their drug testing.
According to a recent DATIA newsletter:
Investigations conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) revealed that a large number of simple processes were not being completed as required. For example:
*75% of sites did NOT secure the facility from all substances that could be used to adulterate or dilute the specimen
*67% of sites did NOT secure all sources of water in the restroom
*42% of sites did NOT ask the employee to empty his/her pockets and display items to ensure no items are present that could be used to adulterate the specimen 42
*19% of sites did NOT check the temperature of the specimen
*42% of sites did NOT place a bluing agent in the toilet or secure it with tape
Permalink
08.29.08
Posted in General at 8:15 am by administrator
Arkansas goes online with drug, alcohol testing results
No matter if you’re from Arkansas or not, chances are if you have any sort of connection with an Arkansas-based trucking company, your drug and alcohol test results will be reported to the state’s new online database.
A new law kicked into effect the first of 2008 that requires Arkansas trucking companies not only to search the database before hiring a driver, but also to report any positive or refused drug or alcohol test results to the state.
The new online system went live on the state’s official Web site earlier this week and provides employers access in real time to alcohol and drug test results for commercial drivers.
In addition to the reporting responsibilities, the Arkansas law enacted in 2007 requires employers to search the online database before hiring commercial drivers. If a commercial driver is found to have a positive or refused drug or alcohol test result on their record, the employer cannot hire the driver.
According to the law, employers and medical review officers are required to report any positive or refused alcohol or drug test results to the state-managed database within three business days.
The employers and medical review officers are required by the law to report all truckers – not just Arkansas CDL holders – with positive results or refusals to test.
Employers and medical review officers must first register for an online account. Searching and reporting within the database requires only the commercial driver’s CDL number and date of birth. The system reports violations to the driver’s alcohol and drug record in the same way that commercial driving records are updated. All information is accessed through a secure online system at ark.org/drugtest/index.php/user/login, which also includes a link to the law.
– By Jami Jones, senior editor of Land Line Magazine
jami_jones@landlinemag.com
Permalink
08.05.08
Posted in General at 10:22 am by administrator
A team of scientists from the USA and Italy say they have developed a urine test that detects human growth hormone. The finding is a potential breakthrough in efforts to find a non-invasive way to screen for the performance-enhancing drug that is banned throughout the athletic world. Governing bodies and U.S. pro leagues have long sought a test that doesn’t require blood to detect HGH, a synthetic hormone that aids in recovery and bolsters muscle growth. Even with the blood test, no prominent athlete has tested positive for HGH. Former track and field star Marion Jones and some baseball players, including New York Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte, have admitted using it. Virginia-based Ceres Nanosciences, partnered with George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and Italy’s Istituto Superiore di Sanità, could have the test on the market within six months, company CEO Thomas Dunlap says. Ceres’ intention was first reported by the Washington Business Journal. Widespread adoption of the test probably would depend on lengthy scientific reviews by anti-doping authorities, leagues and players unions. World Anti-Doping Agency representatives had a conference call with Ceres officials last week, WADA spokesman Frederic Donze says. Don Catlin, a founder of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Lab, long has been trying to develop a urine test for HGH. “This invention could be a giant step forward. … I’m going to pay a lot of attention,” he says. The researchers initially weren’t out to combat doping in sports. They were fighting cancer. “Our aim wasn’t to clean up sport like some social Santa Claus,” says George Mason life sciences professor Emanuel Petricoin, a member of Ceres’ scientific advisory board. “We locked onto HGH because it presented us with a challenge due to the fact it’s so hard to detect. As a sports fan, it’d be great to know there could be a more-level playing field.”
“We’re more fans of cancer research,” says Lance Liotta, a George Mason University life sciences professor and also on Ceres’ scientific advisory board.
Creating a test for HGH is more of a waystation for Ceres. Dunlap says if the test is adopted by sports leagues and anti-doping organizations, the revenue that would be generated would go toward creating tests that can detect cancer in its earliest stages.
“That’s the next stop for us,” Dunlap says. “We want to be able to detect disease and viruses early so they can be more effectively treated.”
The researchers developed a particle about one-tenth the size of a red blood cell that attracts, traps and protects HGH molecules, according to George Mason research professor Alessandra Luchini. The particles surround nearly 100% of the HGH molecules and act as an amplifier, so available testing equipment can detect the synthetic hormone.
Dunlap said the test can detect HGH two weeks after an athlete has last used it. Current blood screening for HGH, set to be used again at the Beijing Olympics, can identify HGH 24-48 hours after an athlete’s last use.
Ceres has licensed three patents from George Mason in what it calls “Nanotrap” technology.
The next step is getting the WADA and pro leagues to approve the test’s use, a process that could take awhile, says Gary Green, a Los Angeles-based internist who serves as a consultant to Major League Baseball on performance-enhancing drugs.
“The company presented its early findings and provided preliminary results on the potential application for HGH detection,” Donze said in an e-mail. “WADA encouraged the company to continue its work and emphasized that there is a robust process to be followed from research to the full implementation of a test for anti-doping purpose … WADA must ensure that all detection methods it approves and implements can withstand any scientific and legal challenge.”
Ceres soon will start conducting human trials, Dunlap says.
“If this proves to be a reliable test, this would be tremendously helpful,” says Drug Free Sport President Frank Uryasz, whose company runs the NCAA’s drug testing program.
Former senator George Mitchell, who led the investigation into baseball’s steroid era, told Congress in January, “Many players have shifted to human growth hormone, which is not detectable in any currently available urine test.”
MLB spokesman Rich Levin said in an e-mail that MLB could move to include a urine HGH test as soon as one is scientifically validated.
Greg Bouris, spokesman for the Major League Baseball Players Association, said the union had no comment.
The NFL and its players union would have to collectively bargain the use of such a test.
“We are always open to reviewing any test but have yet to see a test that is available on a commercial basis,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said. NFL Players Association officials could not be reached for comment.
Catlin has been trying to develop an HGH urine test most recently at his independent Anti-Doping Research lab in Los Angeles. He has received funding from MLB and the NFL for the effort.
Contributing: Mel Antonen, Jim Corbett
Permalink
Posted in Regulations at 10:20 am by administrator
The employer guidelines – “What Employers Need to Know About DOT Drug and Alcohol Testing” – and the “Substance Abuse Professional Guidelines” have been updated to reflect corresponding 49 CFR Part 40 amendment changes that were published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2008, and effective August 25, 2008.
Summary of changes:
“What Employers Need to Know About DOT Drug and Alcohol Testing”
● Added a statement saying that all Return-to-Duty and Follow-up drug test collections are to be conducted under direct observation.
● Added four new refusals to test.
● Took care of some typos found in the previous version.
● Clarified a few issues about alcohol testing.
● [Specifics of these changes are highlighted on the back cover of the guidelines.]
● Table of Contents offers hyperlinks to corresponding sections.
“SAP Guidelines”
● Added a statement saying that all Return-to-Duty and Follow-up drug test collections are to be conducted under direct observation.
These documents have an effective date of August 25, 2008. The employer and SAP Guidelines can be found on our web site at www.dot.gov/ost/dapc/employer.html and www.dot.gov/ost/dapc/sap.html respectively.
Jim L. Swart
Acting Director
Office of Drug and Alcohol
Policy and Compliance
U.S. Department of Transportation
Permalink
08.03.08
Posted in General at 12:28 pm by administrator
ORLANDO, Fla. (Ivanhoe Newswire) — Trusting patients to monitor their own prescription drugs is a deadly trend in the United States, a new study reveals.
Thanks to shortened hospital stays and medications for just about every ailment, an increasing number of people manage their prescription drugs at home; however, this convenience comes at a cost. More and more deaths are occurring as a result of drug complications.
To explore this trend, researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) examined 50 million death certificates stored in the National Center for Health Statistics database. Among those, they looked at 200,000 death certificates where prescription drugs were at fault.
Findings show an astonishing 3,196 percent increase in type 1 errors, or deaths at home from combining medication with alcohol and/or street drugs. On the other hand, researchers found only a five percent increase in type 4 errors. Type 4 errors are prescription drug fatalities that don’t take place at home and don’t involve alcohol or street drugs.
“Death from medicine alone is going up, but nowhere near as much as deaths from medicine in combination with alcohol and street drugs,” lead study author David Phillips, Ph.D., a professor of sociology at UCSD, told Ivanhoe. “The increase that is most steep is when the accident occurs at home.”
Dr. Phillips and his team were the first to do a large-scale study of medication fatalities taking place at home. Study results point to a need for more research in this area. “The research implications are to start paying attention to medication errors in the home and paying attention to medication errors caused by patients,” Dr. Phillips said. “Another research implication is to start paying attention to patients who are under 60, because our data showed that the increase was particularly steep for them.”
Dr. Phillips added that change is also needed on the medical policy level, and “If you are going to include the patient as a member of your quality control team, which is happening more and more, you’re going to have to start training them much more carefully than has been done up until now.”
Patients themselves can also take precautions against these types of deaths. “It seems as if some patients are ignoring the label instructions which say don’t mix alcohol with medicine,” Dr. Phillips said. “And, certainly, one thing patients can do is pay attention to the labels.”
SOURCE: Ivanhoe interview with David Phillips, Ph.D.; The Archives of Internal Medicine, 2008;168:1561-1566
Permalink
06.25.08
Posted in Drug Abuse and Statistics, Employers, General, Laboratories, Press Release, Regulations, TPA at 5:00 pm by administrator
Published in today’s Federal Register is a Department of Transportation Final Rule:
Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs
In summary:
1. This Final Rule makes it mandatory for laboratories to test all DOT specimens for specimen validity (i.e., adulterants and urine substitutes) and for laboratories to follow all Department of Health and Human Resources (HHS) protocols for doing so.
2. Observed collections will afford less privacy in order to guard against employee use of items designed specifically to beat the testing process.
a. Directly observed collections will continue to occur only when there is a specific reason to believe that an employee may be attempting, or have sufficient reason, to evade the testing process.
b. Items such as prosthetic devices designed to carry clean urine will be checked for by observers with both male and female donors. The observer will have the employee raise and lower clothing, and then put it back into place for the observed collection.
c. Observed collections will now be required, rather than optional, for all return-to-duty and follow-up drug testing.
3. In an effort to thwart those who would manufacturer products designed to adulterate specimens, the Final Rule will no longer have easy-to-follow tables and charts outlining the adulterants for which laboratories are testing and the scientific cutoff levels at which laboratories are testing them.
4. Definitions in the Final Rule have been changed to harmonize with the HHS.
5. During an invalid result Medical Review Officer (MRO) review, an employee admission of adulterating or substituting a specimen is now a refusal to test.
6. Pursuant to MRO requests, the Final Rule will close the potentially endless loop on invalid specimen results; and employees requiring negative results [for example, pre-employment tests], when they have medical reasons for providing invalid results, will be able to obtain them through medical evaluations to rule out signs and symptoms of drug use.
7. The Final Rule will also streamline and simplify the potential myriad of complicated laboratory-confirmed and MRO-verified drug test results.
8. The Final Rule requires drug testing laboratories to report to DOT semi-annual statistical summaries on all of their DOT testing.
9. The Final Rule effective date is August 25, 2008.
Permalink
06.14.08
Posted in General at 1:14 pm by administrator
AIMING FOR DRUG-FREE WORKPLACES
Random drug tests of small businesses’ employees are more common now than they used to be, and so is testing of prospective workers before they’re hired, and with good reason.
It makes sense for a company of any size, but especially small businesses, to require drug tests for prospective employees.
You may think you know your employees well enough to spot a problem if there is one, but people who are users are less likely to apply to a company that does test. And once a drug user is on your payroll, watch out: the costs can be a lot more than the 50 dollars or less you pay for a drug test.
According to government estimates, drug users are four times more likely to be involved in an accident, five times more likely to file a worker’s compensation claim. The government says across the country, companies are losing about 82 billion dollars a year in productivity. Drug users miss more days of work and show up late more often.
You may not want to invade your workers’ privacy, but if there’s random screening, nobody needs to feel they’re being singled out.
Alcoholism is in the same category. You know that if a worker has a drinking problem, it’s almost sure to affect their job performance. According to Quest Diagnostics, one of the biggest testing labs, typically almost 6% of employees nationwide test positive for drug use and 4% of job applicants. And Quest says the tests are reliable enough that there are very few false positives.
Insurance companies often charge lower premium rates to businesses that screen for drug use and actively aim for a drug-free workplace. So, if the place you work puts in a drug testing program, no reason for you to feel insulted. It’s nothing personal. Just good business.
Permalink
06.13.08
Posted in General at 7:53 am by administrator
In today’s Federal Register [No. 73, Vol. 115, Pg. 33735], ODAPC has published an Interim Final Rule (IFR) permitting state commercial drivers license (CDL) issuing authorities to receive commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver positive and refusal drug and alcohol test results from employers without driver written consent. The IFR also permits these state licensing authorities to receive owner-operator positive and refusal results from Consortia / Third Party Administrators (C/TPAs).
So, when a state law requires employers and C/TPAs [for owner-operators] to report CMV driver positive and refusal results for tests conducted under 49 CFR Parts 382 [FMCSA] and 655 [FTA] to a state licensing authority, there are no barriers, real or perceived, in part 40 preventing them from doing so.
Permalink
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
