DRUG SCREENING'S KINKS PERSIST

Cheaper Testing Can Leave Applicants Without Safeguards

Helen White says it really happened: In one day, 35 of 44 would-be
employees of a Washington-based mortgage company took a drug screen and
tested positive for opiates.

It was one of the strangest outcomes that White, chief operating officer at
Capitol MRO Inc., a drug-screening administration firm in Annapolis, had
ever seen.

So she called the human resources specialist who had convened the lender's
new recruits.

"I asked her, 'Did you serve refreshments? Poppy seed bagels, perhaps?'"
White recalled.

"And she replied, 'Yeah, how would you know?' "

Capitol MRO contacted those 35 people and found they had indeed eaten the
bagels. All the suspicious results were deemed negative, and the mortgage
company learned a lesson.

"They changed over to doughnuts or pastries or something else," White said.

Even though it may seem almost an urban legend, there was a time when the
drug tests required of many job seekers were set up in a way that could
interpret poppy seeds as trace levels of their opiate relatives. Those
tests have been adjusted so that bagels are unlikely to be the bad guys,
but White and others in the drug-testing industry say that today's system
isn't foolproof. Over-the-counter antihistamines and cough medicines, as
well as prescription painkillers, can sway these tests. They also say there
may be concerns about the accuracy and fairness of less-expensive drug
testing, as a growing number of frugal small and medium-size companies do
away with lab confirmation and medical review processes.

"Screening kits are being sold broadly across the country," said Ted
Shults, chairman of the American Association of Medical Review Officers in
Research Triangle Park, N.C. "In a nutshell, non-regulated employers feel
that it's fast and it's cheap to screen applicants themselves. And that
does not provide the applicant any safeguards."

For an extra $25 per person, an employer could implement these safeguards.
Many choose not to because the risk of liability is low, said Shults, a
lawyer and forensic toxicologist.

"In most states, employers are given a lot of discretion in their hiring
practices," he said. They often don't care if "one or two people may not be
hired unfairly."

These companies operate in a different realm than federal agencies such as
the Department of Transportation, which must adhere to stricter standards.

About 67 percent of employers conduct drug screening, according to Melissa
Moskal, executive director of the Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry
Association in Alexandria. Last year, about 4.5 percent of people in the
general workforce tested positive, as did 2.5 percent of those screened as
part of the federally mandated program for safety-sensitive employees.

Lab-based urine testing is the most popular, the association reports,
followed by on-site urine testing, then testing of hair, saliva and sweat.

In the government-regulated sector, a medical review officer -- a licensed
physician with a toxicology background -- must evaluate all non-negative
results.

Only the doctor can determine whether a sample is positive after
investigating the cause. For instance, the MRO may contact the applicant to
ask about prescription drugs that could have caused the result.

If that's the case, the MRO verifies the information with the applicant's
physician and the pharmacy where the prescription was filled. Then the MRO
decides what the actual result is and advises the screening firm and the
employer.

"We're looking for a legitimate medical explanation," said Benjamin Gerson,
an MRO at University Services in Philadelphia, which got its start in 1967
by doing business with six local medical schools. Now, the firm serves
companies nationwide.

"The story has to be consistent with what we see on the drug test results,"
Gerson said. "If you're positive for cocaine and you tell me that you love
poppy seed bagels, that's not going to be an explanation for your cocaine."

Review can take from 24 hours to a few days.

"A lot of these companies don't want to wait that long to make a hiring
decision. They're looking for an instant-type product," said Ron Lashier,
vice president of national accounts at HireRight Inc., a pre-employment
screening firm in Irvine, Calif.

The odds are still in favor of most drug test-takers who expect a fair
assessment.

"If you've never failed a test and you're not an illegal drug user, you can
just roll the dice," Shults said, "because statistically, you'll be fine."

Sidebar:

Improve the Odds of a Fair Test Sunday, November 14, 2004; Page K01

Ted Shults of the American Association of Medical Review Officers offers
ways for job seekers to increase their chances of a fair and accurate drug
test:

- - Know what you're getting into beforehand.

- - Feel free to ask if a confirmation lab test will be done.

- - Ask whether you would be able to speak with a medical review officer
should any issues come up.