Human resource and other management professionals ask me, “What’s the cost/benefit analysis of workplace drug testing programs?”—not an unreasonable question, since those programs are a significant investment, both in terms of paying for the testing itself and of the staff and time commitments to develop and administer the process.
Employer drug testing programs have documented benefits, in line with their goals, which are often stated as two pronged: detection and, more significantly, deterrence.

Detection relates to forensics, in other words a process to identify workplace drug and alcohol users for legal and disciplinary purposes. Post-accident testing, for example, is meant to determine whether a workplace accident may have been caused or partially caused by drug- or alcohol-related impairments. This information is used to assign responsibilities for personal injury or property damage.

Deterrence, on the other hand, is eliminating the problem before it occurs. Most pre-employment and random drug testing programs are meant to keep drug and alcohol use and misuse out of the workplace to begin with.

All of that sounds great, but in the words of one of my colleagues, “In God We Trust…..All Others Bring Data!” Okay. Here is what we know:

• Drug use in the workplace costs employers $75 to $100 billion dollars annually in lost time, accidents, health care and workers compensation costs (US Department of Labor estimate)
• 65% of all accidents on the job are related to drug or alcohol use
• Substance abusers utilize 16 times as many health care benefits and are six times more likely to file workers compensation claims than non-abusers.

One cost burden not addressed by the statistical reports is “presenteeism,” a situation where employees are at work but their production is diminished by a health-related issue. Some researchers estimate that drug-related presenteeism costs US employers $1 billion yearly.

Compare that to the cost of a drug test for a small- to medium-size employer: $50-$70 for collection of the sample, laboratory analysis, services of a Medical Review Officer (MRO), and communications of the results in the manner most convenient to the employer. Eliminating the problem of even one employee with a substance abuse problem is well worth it.

Dr. Martin is the Medical Director of St. Luke’s Center for Occupational Health Excellence (Sioux City – Iowa Health System). He chairs the Medical Review Officer Section of the American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine (ACOEM).