Evaluation Approaches for Cost-Effectiveness and Effectiveness of Drug Testing Programs

  • Joan A. Marshman
Part of the Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems book series (AADP, volume 11)

Abstract

In the current economic climate, one question increasingly dominates decision making about expenditures: What are we getting for our money? This is a critical question for all types of decision makers—private and public sector, large operations and small—and a concern for members of the general public who variously wear the hats of consumer, investor, and taxpayer. It is no less a concern in drug abuse programming than in other areas, as evidenced by the remarks of the Hon. Charles B. Rangel, Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control (Rangel, 1990, p. 23): “We need economists and business people to evaluate what we are doing, and at least to give us ideas as to where we should be going in order to come up with better approaches to the problem. … We need the benefit of … guidance as to how to do a better job [with the resources] we have now.” When these concerns focus on employees’ drug use, three types of questions are important:

Keywords

Transportation Cocaine Expense Allo Lost 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blaze-Temple, D., 1992, Drug testing in the Australian workplace: Overview of the issues, Drug and Alcohol Review 2:59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bray, R. M., Marsden, M. E., Rachal, J. V., and Peterson, M. R., 1990, Drug and alcohol use in the military workplace: Findings from the 1988 Worldwide Survey, in: Drugs in the Workplace: Research and Evaluation Data, vol. II, NIDA Research Monograph, No. 100 (S. W. Gust, J. M. Walsh, L. B. Thomas, and D. J. Crouch, eds.), pp. 25–43, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Cangianelli, L. A., 1989, The effects of a drug testing program in the Navy, in: Problems of Drug Dependence, 1989; Proceedings of the 51st Annual Scientific Meeting, of the Committee on Drug Dependence, Inc., NIDA Research Monograph, No. 95 (L. S. Harris, ed.), pp. 211–217, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. Coombs, R. H. and Ryan, F. J., 1990, Drug Testing Effectiveness in Identifying and Preventing Drug Use, Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse 16:173–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cornell/Smithers Report, 1992, Drug testing: Cost and effect, 1:1–4.Google Scholar
  6. Crouch, D. J., Webb, D. O., Buller, P. F. and Rollins, D. E., 1989, A critical evaluation of the Utah Power and Light Company’s substance abuse management program: Absenteeism, accidents and costs, in: Drugs in the Workplace: Research and Evaluation Data, NIDA Research Monograph, No. 91 (S. W. Gust and J. M. Walsh, eds.), pp. 169–193, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Doubilet, P., Weinstein, M. C., and McNeil, B. J., 1986, Use and misuse of the term “cost effective” in medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, 314:253–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drummond, M. F., and Stoddart G. L., 1984, Economic analysis and clinical trials, Controlled Clinical Trials 5:115–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drummond, M. F., Stoddart, G. L., and Torrance, G. W., 1987, Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programs, Oxford University Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  10. Faley, R. H., Kleiman, L. S., and Wall, P. S., 1988, Drug testing in public and private-sector workplaces: Technical and legal issues, Journal of Business and Psychology 3:154–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Health and Welfare Canada, 1990, Canadian Laboratory Standards for Drug Screening in the Workplace (Catalogue No. H42-2/23–1990), Ministry of Supply and Services, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  12. Heller, D., and Robinson, A. E., 1991, Substance Abuse in the Workforce: A Review Document to Provide Background Information as an Aid to Public Discussion and Policy Development, Ontario Ministry of Labor, Toronto.Google Scholar
  13. Henriksson, L. E., 1991, The unconvincing case for drug testing, Canadian Public Policy, 17:183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horngren, C. T., 1982, Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  15. Houts, L. M., 1991, Survey of the current status of cost-savings evaluations in employee assistance programs, Employee Assistance Quarterly 7:57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lesher, R. L., 1990, Statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in: The Impact of Drugs on American Business and the American Economy: Hearing before the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, House of Representatives, 101st Congress, 2nd Session, October 3, 1990, SCNAC-101-2-13, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  17. Moody, D. E., Andrenyak, D. M., Wilkins, D. G., and Rollins, D. E., 1990, Mandatory post-accident drug and alcohol testing for the Federal Railroad Administration: A comparison of results for two consecutive years, in: Drugs in the Workplace: Research and Evaluation Data, vol. II, NIDA Research Monograph, No. 100 (S. W. Gust, J. M. Walsh, L. B. Thomas, and D. J. Crouch, eds), pp. 79–96, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. Morgan, J. P., 1988, The “scientific” justification for urine drug testing, The University of Kansas Law Review 36:683–697.Google Scholar
  19. Osterloh, J. D., and Becker, C. E., 1990, Chemical dependency and drug testing in the workplace, Western Journal of Medicine 152:506–513.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rangel, Charles B., 1990, The Impact of Drugs on American Business and the American Economy: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, House of Representatives 101st Congress, 2nd Session, October 3, 1990, SCNAC-101-2-13, p. 23, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  21. Robinson, A. E., 1989, Drug use testing: The Canadian scene Journal of Forensic Sciences 34:1422–1432.Google Scholar
  22. Roman, P. M., 1989, The use of EAPs in dealing with drug abuse in the workplace, in: Drugs in the Workplace: Research and Evaluation Data (S. N. Gust and J. M. Walsh, eds.), NIDA Research Monograph, No. 91, pp. 271–285, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Rothstein, M. A., 1989, Medical Screening and Employment Law: A note of caution and some observations, Employment Testing 3:363–369.Google Scholar
  24. Sheridan, J., and Winkler, H., 1989, An evaluation of drug testing in the workplace, in: Drugs in the Workplace: Research and Evaluation Data, NIDA Research Monograph, No. 91, (S. W. Gust, and J. M. Walsh, eds.), pp. 195–216, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. Taggert, R. W., 1989, Results of the drug testing program at Southern Pacific Railroad, in: Drugs in the Workplace: Research and Evaluation Data, NIDA Research Monograph, No. 91 (S. W. Gust, and J. M. Walsh, eds.), pp. 97–108, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1988, Mandatory guidelines for Federal workplace drug testing programs, Federal Register 53:11970–11989.Google Scholar
  27. Wish, E. D., 1990, Preemployment drug screening, Journal of the American Medical Association 264:2676–2677.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zwerling, C., Ryan, J., and Orav, E. J., 1990, The efficacy of preemployment drug screening for marijuana and cocaine in predicting employment outcome, Journal of the American Medical Association 264:2639–2643.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zwerling, C., Ryan, J., and Orav, E. J., 1992, Costs and benefits of preemployment drug screening, Journal of the American Medical Association 267:91–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan A. Marshman
    • 1
  1. 1.Addiction Research FoundationTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations