The Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA) held our second annual meeting in San Diego, CA on March 26 - 29, 1998 for over 220 attendees from all over the country. According to the attendees, the conference was a huge success. "The conference included important and critical information that every collector should know in order to run a successful business, it couldn't have been better," comments an attendee from Pennsylvania. In addition, the exhibit space was packed, with companies who offer breath alcohol tests, on-site urine tests and much more.

The Conference contained a wide range of topic issue areas including a regulatory update from the Department of Transportation on their rewrite of Part 40 and a series of breakout sessions targeted at improving collection site operations. Mary Bernstein, Director, Office of Drug Policy and Compliance, gave as much information as she could regarding DoT's activities on Part 40 rewrite. She reiterated her commitment to the importance of trained collectors. Although DoT is not allowed to endorse any training program, they did indicate that they are "pleased with what they saw," in the "Train the Trainer" training seminar. In addition to the regulatory update, participants attended breakout sessions on "Beating the Test," a panel seminar on adulterants and how to detect them; "On-site testing, Is it for You," a panel of on-site kit manufacturer representatives explaining how these tests can augment a collector's business; "How to Market your Collection Site," a panel on marketing techniques that have and have not worked for collection sites.

At the meeting, DATIA's Board of Directors decided to formally endorse the use of on-site urine tests for mandated and non-mandated drug testing. The Board of Directors unanimously voted to endorse the use of on-site urine tests in an employers drug testing program. Currently, private sector employers may use on-site urine tests for drug testing, but on-site tests are banned for mandated testing for safety-sensitive employees.

As the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) considers the use of alternative specimens in mandated drug testing, DATIA's Board of Directors voted to support on-site urine testing in order to ensure that collector training, chain of custody and positive confirmation were strongly considered and enforced in the public and private domain.

DATIA's Board of Directors were primarily concerned that the quality of the collection was not jeopardized by the on-site testing process and that strict training standards for collectors are incorporated with their use. In addition, they emphasized the need for a standard operating procedure for custody and control form use. In order to ensure the anonymity of the donor and the validity of the test, proper chain of custody procedures must be implemented. Lastly, they stressed the need for laboratory GC/MS confirmation of all presumptive positives. Although the validity of the on-site urine tests have been proven by both the scientific community and the courtroom, the Board has said that all initial positive screens need to be sent to a lab for confirmation to been absolutely certain of the result. This not only protects the donor, but also protects the collector. In addition to the endorsement, DATIA will research criteria for collectors to use when evaluating which on-site urine test kits are best suited for them.

The Board of Director's formal statement is as follows: "The Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA) endorses the use of alternative urine on-site tests, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), by collectors trained in all aspects of forensic urine collection procedures utilizing Custody and Control documentation with all presumptive positive initial screens to be sent for GC/MS confirmation."

The Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB), the group responsible for making drug testing recommendations to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), met again to discuss Federal use of alternative specimens in mandated drug testing and distributed a draft proposal for their use. Even though their use in Federally mandated tests is years away, alternative specimens are being accepted by scientists, lawmakers, as well as the collection industry as seen by DATIA's Board of Directors recent endorsement of on-site urine drug tests (see related story, page 1).

DTAB released a 36-page draft of their proposal for mandatory guidelines for alternative specimens and technologies. In consideration are the use of saliva, sweat, hair and on-site urine tests in mandated drug testing. This draft still has many holes and DTAB will be turning to the service providers for information to fill in these holes. DATIA intends to present the success of the accreditation program as a non-regulatory example of a successful training program.

One contentious issue that surfaced during the meeting, was the recommendation that two analysts, in addition to the collector, verify the results for on-site urine tests. This recommendation was made to mitigate the concern that some of these on-site tests are difficult to read. The reason for the double confirmation was that an additional analyst verifying the result would increase the validity of the on-site testing process. However, some questioned the need for and the costs of additional analysts involved in confirming the initial screens and said that such a requirement was an undue burden on the employer and defeats the purpose of the streamlining of the collection process. Another attendee pointed out that a series of checks and balances already exists in the on-site process. For example, if the collector is unsure whether the specimen is positive or negative, that specimen should be send to the lab for conformation.

DTAB will meet again in June and DATIA will keep you informed of their progress

President Clinton and General Barry McCaffery (ret.), Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONCP), recently released their national drug control strategy aimed at cutting drug use in half by 2007. Their goals are to (1) educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco; (2) increase the safety of America's citizens by substantially reducing drug-related crime and violence; (3) reduce health and social costs to the public of illegal drug use; (4) shield American's air, land and sea frontiers from the drug threat; and (5) break foreign and domestic drug sources of supply.

Although a major part of the strategy is aimed at drug interdiction and targeting young people, a workplace component has been included in their goals promoting national adoption of drug-free workplace programs that emphasize drug testing, education, prevention and intervention. According to recent studies an estimated 6.2 million full-time employees and 1.9 million part-time employees use illegal drugs and the study shows that these employees are less productive, are more likely to be absent and are fired more frequently than the average worker. As part of the strategy, SAMSHA has already awarded nine grants to study the impact of comprehensive drug-free workplace programs on productivity and healthcare costs in major US corporations and in small businesses.

The following facts were taken from both the Bill Moyers special on Addiction and the latest Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) report issued by SAMSHA. They are helpful figures and facts for you to know to include in you business literature and discussions regarding the importance of drug testing in a society that continues to have problems with drug and alcohol abuse which negatively impacts the workplace.

• Eight percent of full-time workers report abusing alcohol;

• More than two-thirds of illicit drug abusers have full-time jobs;

• Six percent of alcohol abusers and 15 percent of illegal drug abusers admit being drunk or high on the job in the past year, and 40 percent work that way once a week;

• Small businesses (under 25 employees) account for 57 percent of the employees who abuse illegal drugs;

• An additional 30 percent work in medium size business (25 to 499 employees).

The following data refers to 1996 numbers:

• Twenty-seven percent of total drug-related emergency room episodes occurred among persons aged 26 to 34 years, while 41 percent occurred among individuals 35 years and older (majority of working population);

• Fifty-four percent of total drug-related emergency room episodes occurred among whites, 27 percent among Blacks, and 10 percent among Hispanics the other 9 percent could not be identified;

• The number of emergency room visits occurring between 1994-1996 in major US cities increased in New Orleans, LA, 19 percent; and in Newark, NJ, 7 percent, but decreased in Boston, MA, 20 percent; Denver, CO, 28 percent, New York, NY, 18 percent; San Francisco, CA, 12 percent and Washington, DC, 20 percent.

• For cocaine, the number of emergency room episodes increased from 1 percent in 1978 to 30 percent in 1996 and for those aged 35 and older, the episodes increased by 21 percent from 1994 to 1996;

• For heroin, the number of emergency room episodes increased from 4 percent in 1978 to 14 percent in 1996 and for those aged 35 and older, the episodes increased by 20 percent from 1994-1996;

• For marijuana, the number of emergency room episodes increased by 25 percent from 1994-1996 and emergency room episodes has increased by a whopping 219 percent since 1990 and the most frequent users of the drug ate between the age of 18-34.

For a full copy of the DAWN report call (800) 729-6686 and for information regarding the Bill Moyers special, contact Robert Miller, WNET, 356 W. 58th Street, NY, NY 10019

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued a new policy aimed at making it easier for manufacturers to market home drug abuse specimen collection kits, while still ensuring that test results are accurate and reliable. As long as the kits meet certain criteria, the manufacturers may market the kits without prior approval from the FDA. This will apply to kits used in the workplace, insurance and other controlled settings.

The home kits are used by parents, employers and insurance companies to collect urine which is then sent to the lab for testing for illegal drugs and the results are related by phone from the manufacturer to the person who sent the specimen.

According to William B. Schulz, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Policy, "The proposal balances the need to assure the accuracy of tests for drugs of abuse and the goal of simplifying the regulatory requirements so that these tests are made available to parents and others as soon as feasible.

The FDA has said that the kits must meet the following criteria before they may be marketed without prior agency approval:

(1) The test used by the laboratory to identify the existence of illegal drugs must be approved or otherwise recognized by FDA as accurate and reliable for laboratory use. FDA has already cleared more than 200 laboratory urine tests to detect drugs of abuse. This will ensure the accuracy of the tests.

(2) The laboratory performing the test must be certified to do the necessary screening and confirmatory tests. Some 70 laboratories certified by SAMSHA would meet this requirement, as well as numerous laboratories certified by other agencies and organization. This will ensure the qualifications of the laboratory to perform the test.

(3) The collection kits must be accurately labeled so consumers can easily use them, samples must be clearly identified to avoid mix-ups. Accurate labeling will enable the lay person to understand what drugs the test can and cannot identify, the time frame within which the drugs can be detected, how to properly collect the tests specimen and mail it to the laboratory, how to interpret test results, and how to obtain professional counseling, if needed.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued a new policy for laboratories to test a split specimen for adulterants. In a March 9, 1998 notice to MROs and Labs, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) detailed a new policy for all split specimens that are negative when the initial specimen is positive. The administration believes that the reason so many split specimens that are testing negative are due to adulterants. To avoid a canceled test, SAMSHA has said that the split, when negative, must be sent to a third lab to test for adulterants. If adulterants are found in the split, the original specimen must also be checked for adulterants as well and a "refusal to test" is issued to the employer. Red book subscribers will receive a complimentary copy of the policy, others may contact SAMSHA, Division of Workplace Programs at (301) 443-6780 for a copy.

The National On-Site Testing Association (NOTA) issued copies of model legislation authorizing initial drug and alcohol on-site testing to members of the drug testing community and to all 50 states. Many states have specific legislative language prohibiting the use on on-site tests in the workplace, but David Evans, NOTA executive director has said that members are continuing the fight in each state for use of the on-site devises. The model bill includes provisions that DATIA has determined critical for use of on-site tests including, the extensive training of the collector, use and knowledge of proper procedures for the Chain of Custody form and the confirmation by a laboratory of all positives or with a DoT approved alcohol testing devise for alcohol. According to Evans, "We wanted to put together standard language that would set high protocol for on-site drug and alcohol testing in the workplace, including training requirements for specimen collectors and quality standards the test kits must meet."

The Supreme Court may have expanded the use of drug testing in the Federal government when it rejected an appeal by two economists who were subject to random testing because they held passes into the Old Executive Office Building (OEOB) which holds the Vice President's office and is adjacent to the White House. The economists argued that their privacy rights were being violated because there was not reason they should be subject to random testing. They argued the they were neither in safety-sensitive positions or working directly in the OEOB. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the economists fell under the provision allowing key employees in the Executive Office of the President to be part of a random drug testing program. Although the economists did not work in the OEOB, they did frequently attend meetings in the building and had access to valuable information. This ruling may significantly expand random testing for Federal employees.

In the next issue of Collection Site Industry News, members will notice a difference in both the layout and content. Staff is working diligently to incorporate "features" that the membership has expressed an interest in finding in the newsletter.

Some of the new features will include local and regional news items, member profiles, industry "horror" stories, tips to handle unique collection situations or locations, and unique uses of adulterants by donors. We urge all members to submit your stories, tips and member profiles (preferably with a photo) so that you may be featured in an upcoming newsletter. If you have an industry-related item of interest or importance, we want to hear from you.

For those who were unable to attend the 1998 DATIA Annual Conference, you may purchase the binder and handouts received by meeting attendees. This packet contains synopses of presentations on topics such as running a Consortium, On-Site testing, and what happens to the specimen at the laboratory. In addition, you will receive the full listing of meeting attendees by company and name. The binder also contains a list of meeting exhibitors and sponsors, as well as descriptions of their products and who to contact to receive more information on products that you may be interested in. If you missed the conference, you can't afford to miss this opportunity as well!

Binders are available for $20.00. To purchase a binder, contact Rebecca Norton at 800-355-1257 or info@datia.org. Hurry....quantity is limited!