|
This information is provided for educational purposes only. Reader retains full responsibility for the use of the information contained herein.
Third Party Administrators (TPAs) are a great resource for employers, effectively acting as an agent on behalf of companies they serve. The TPA’s role often includes establishing and maintaining connections with applicable vendors an employer needs to run a successful drug testing program. These vendors include sample collection companies, testing laboratories, and medical review service providers. Third Party Administrators may perform other functions as well: for example, record management and random selections. Each individual TPA may differ greatly in the services provided. Some may offer extensive lists of services for employers to take advantage of, while others may offer a very narrow selection. If the latter is the case, a TPA may want to consider offering additional services, but it is important for any TPA to examine the pros and cons associated with additional options. In this article we will look at some ancillary services a TPA may consider adding, along with the positive and negative impacts those additions may have. One-Stop Shop Offering multiple services in a single location is greatly beneficial to employers. Time and money are key concerns for any employer, and minimizing the time associated with a drug testing program can be highly attractive. Some TPAs may only operate as a sample collection facility, but there is far more to drug testing than simply collecting a sample. Offering collection services beyond normal business hours is a simple adjustment that can make a large impact on whether employers’ needs are met. After-hours and mobile collection options are not only convenient for employers, but also relatively easy for a TPA to accommodate as very little additional training is required. Third Party Administrators may consider offering services that are not specific to sample collections but related to program management as a whole. For example, many employers require their supervisor personnel to complete some form of supervisor training. Whether training is required at a federal, state, contractual or policy level, offering some form of training can be beneficial. Taking this a step further, TPAs can offer tailor-made training options to meet employers’ specific needs. Additionally, many employers will be subjected to a program audit, sometimes on a regular basis. Mock auditing can assist employers by ensuring their record retention practices, random selections, and other program components meet desired expectations, ultimately preparing an employer for a true audit. Thinking Outside the Drug Testing Box Although TPAs are commonly associated with drug testing programs, other services associated with hiring can be considered as well. Finger printing and background checks are common practices related to onboarding. Offering these additional services may push a TPA to the top of the list for employers to choose from. Going a step further, occupational health and wellness services can be considered as well. Pre-hire physicals, fitness for duty evaluations, audiograms, pulmonary function tests, x-rays, vaccines, and any other medical processes associated with onboarding would only be more beneficial to employers. Many of these services require specialized education, equipment, and training so it may not be realistic for a TPA to suddenly offer occupational health services. However, a TPA could partner with an occupational health provider on behalf of their clients. For instance, if an applicant shows up for a drug screen and completes the process, the TPA can issue them a voucher for medical services at the partnered medical clinic. This voucher would inform the applicant where to go, but also inform the clinic what services are to be rendered. Although this negates the single stop idea, this alternative does provide a streamlined process for both the applicant and employer. Lastly, DNA testing is a service TPAs can consider adding to their menu as it naturally goes together with drug testing. The sample collection process for DNA testing is very similar to the collection process for drug testing. Many laboratories who perform drug testing for TPAs are also equipped to handle DNA testing, making it a relatively simple service to add. The Pros Adding depth to a service menu benefits the TPA as well as the employers they serve. For employers, finding a service provider who meets all their program needs, and maybe a little extra, is the ideal situation as it minimizes the overall impact on their production and bottom line. For a TPA, additional services lead to increased revenue, greater industry exposure, and likely a boost in reputation. Providing flexibility to additional service options is a bonus as it does not limit employers by forcing them to stick within a specified box. Employers want to know that their TPA is willing to accommodate their unique needs, and offering this option is a mutual benefit. The Cons Time and money concerns are not specific to employers. Third Party Administrators are a business as well, and adding new service options will come with some sort of cost. Additional training will be necessary to ensure TPA personnel are adequately versed in providing the services offered. Hiring additional staff may be necessary. Purchasing or leasing new equipment may be required depending on the services being offered, naturally requiring more square footage. These examples almost guarantee a financial commitment from the TPA. It is up to the TPA to decide whether these costs are outweighed by the overall benefits. Conclusion The aforementioned one-stop shop is ideal for employers, and TPAs can work toward this goal by continuing to add service options for their clients. Prior to adding a new service, a TPA should identify all the costs associated with the new offering and calculate the potential cost as well as the potential upside. TPAs who are willing to accommodate the specific needs of each of their clients will reap the benefits of a more extensive service menu. © 2010-2024 DrugPak – No portion of this article may be reproduced, retransmitted, posted on a website, or used in any manner without the written consent of DrugPak. When permission is granted to reproduce this article in any way, full attribution to the author and copyright holder is required. This information is provided for educational purposes only. Reader retains full responsibility for the use of the information contained herein.
Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations on drug testing are well known in the industry. Some states tap into these regulations and add additional state requirements for those employers that are required to follow them. One additional requirement in particular comes in the form of results reporting to state departments of transportation or DMVs. This means that companies that employ certain types of drivers (usually in line with the federal regulations) in the states of Arkansas, California, North Carolina, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington must report drug testing results to the state. Here are some key elements to take note of. Who reports? It is clear to whom employers report their results (federal and/or state), but the question of who does the reporting is a little trickier. Some states require just the employer to make the report, while others require it of the medical review officer (MRO), breath alcohol technician (BAT), third party administrator (TPA), the laboratory, or some combination of some or all of these parties. The following breaks it down by state: Arkansas – Employer and TPA California – Employer North Carolina – Employer New Mexico – Employer and TPA South Carolina – Employer must report to state; MRO and BAT must report to employer Texas – Employer (required); MRO, BAT, TPA, or laboratory (optional) Washington – Employer, MRO, and BAT What is reported? Requirements on what is reported are very similar from state to state. In each state, alcohol positives and drug positives are reported. However, in some states, alcohol refusals (AR, NC, NM, SC, & WA), alcohol adulterations (SC), drug refusals (AR, NC, NM, SC, & WA), and drug adulterations (AR & SC) must also be reported. What types of tests? Depending on the state, employee testing results, applicant test results, or both may be required. Arkansas, Texas, and Washington only require employee results. New Mexico, North Carolina, and South Carolina require all results, which would include employee and applicant testing, except that an applicant’s refusal in New Mexico and North Carolina is not considered a violation requiring a report at the state level. California makes no mention of which types of tests are required, meaning both are probably a good idea to include, if not required. When to report? Again, the timeframe in which to report depends on the state. New Mexico makes no mention of when reporting should be done, while the others range from 3 to 10 days. As well, some states specify business days and others do not. Washington is unusual in that it requires MROs and BATs to report results within 3 business days, but only requires that employers report results when the driver’s employment has been terminated, any grievance process has concluded, and the driver has not been cleared to return to safety sensitive functions. The following is a breakdown of each state: Arkansas – Within 3 business days California – Within 5 days North Carolina – Within 5 business days South Carolina – Within 3 business days Texas – Within 10 days Conclusion Although these are state requirements, they do not seem to stray too far from the U.S. DOT reporting requirements with which employers in these states would already be familiar. And with only a short list to keep track of, state DOT reporting is relatively manageable. In all cases though, it is always advised to seek expert advice before implementing or modifying a drug testing program. © 2010-2024 DrugPak – No portion of this article may be reproduced, retransmitted, posted on a website, or used in any manner without the written consent of DrugPak. When permission is granted to reproduce this article in any way, full attribution to the author and copyright holder is required. This information is provided for educational purposes only. Reader retains full responsibility for the use of the information contained herein.
It’s time to take stock of what occurred throughout 2023. It was an eventful year, with many changes in the world of workplace drug and alcohol testing. This article will give a brief overview of major changes that occurred in 2023. Delaware Legalizes Recreational Cannabis April 2023 saw the legalization of recreational cannabis in Delaware via the passage of two bills, HB 1 and HB 2. HB 1 legalizes recreational cannabis for adults aged 21 and older and makes no mention of employers or the workplace. HB 2 creates a regulatory framework for the production, manufacture, and sale of cannabis, though some details were left to the legislature to determine. HB 2 mentions the workplace, stating that it is not intended to impact/impose any requirements or restrictions on employers regarding terms or conditions of employment. This includes, but is not limited to, workplace accommodations, policies, or discipline. Additionally, an employer who occupies, owns, or controls a property can prohibit or regulate the possession, consumption, use, transfer, distribution, sale, transportation, or growth of cannabis on the property. Personal use cannabis is permitted in Delaware as of April 2023, and a regulatory sales framework has yet to be enacted. DOT Issues Final Oral Fluid Rule In May the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued their final rule adding lab-based oral fluid as an approved test specimen. The rule was effective as of June; however, oral fluid will not be available for use for DOT positions until such a time as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) certifies two laboratories for oral fluid testing. Once this occurs, DOT and federal employers will have the opportunity to choose between urine and oral fluid for their testing needs. The final rule provides extremely detailed guidance for employers, including collection information, device requirements, collector requirements, collection site requirements, a walkthrough of the collection process, cutoff levels, laboratory information, Medical Review Office (MRO) information, Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) information, and more. Kentucky Legalizes Medical Cannabis March brought about the legalization of medical cannabis in Kentucky via Senate Bill 47 (SB 47). Medical cannabis will be available for those with a wide variety of medical conditions and is set to launch by January 2025. Kentucky employers are not required to permit or accommodate medical cannabis in the workplace. Additionally, employers can implement policies restricting the use of medical cannabis, prohibiting or restricting the use of equipment by a medical cannabis patient (broadly), prohibit the use of cannabis by employees, and establish/enforce a drug testing policy. However, a registered patient is not considered to be under the influence of medical cannabis solely because of the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol metabolites. The law includes numerous other provisions pertaining to cannabis and the workplace. Impacted employers should review the law in its entirety and update their policies prior to January 1, 2025. Minnesota Legalizes Recreational Cannabis In May, Minnesota Governor Walz signed HF 100, legalizing recreational cannabis for adults 21 and older in the state. While HF 100 permits commercial cannabis sales, it does not include guidance for the regulatory market, meaning that the Office of Cannabis Management is tasked with drafting and approving rules for commercial sales prior to their projected launch in January 2025. HF 100 provided updated guidance pertaining to both medical cannabis as well as recreational cannabis and the workplace. Generally, employers may not discriminate in hiring, termination, employment conditions, or penalize an individual based on their status as a medical cannabis patient, their status as a tribal medical cannabis patient, or a medical cannabis patient’s positive drug test for cannabis unless the individual used, possessed, transported, or was impaired by medical cannabis at work. Additionally, patients that are required to undergo drug testing as part of the state law may present their patient verification as part of their explanation for a positive test result. Pertaining to recreational cannabis in the workplace, employers may not refuse to hire an applicant because they use cannabis, discipline or discharge an employee because they use cannabis, request/require an applicant to be tested for cannabis solely for the purpose of determining cannabis use, refuse to hire an applicant solely because they returned a positive cannabis test result, or require an applicant or employee to undergo cannabis testing on an arbitrary or capricious basis. Additionally, the law includes a list of what employers may continue to do. HF 100 includes a number of positions for which the law does not apply, the full list of which can be found in the text of the law. Interestingly, HF 100 also separates cannabis testing from drug testing, and makes a number of updates to the general drug and alcohol testing law as well to indicate this split. Employers should carefully review the law in its entirety, review their policies, and make any updates prior to 2025 when the majority of the law becomes effective. Ohio Legalizes Recreational Cannabis The only state with cannabis on the November ballot, Ohio legalized cannabis for adults aged 21 and older via Issue 2. Because Issue 2 was a voter initiative, the legislature may choose to adjust, or, in rare cases, even repeal entirely the initiative down the road. Issue 2 is effective as of December 7, 2023; however, distribution facilities will take up to 9 months beyond this date to become licensed. Ohio employers are not required to accommodate or permit the use, possession, or distribution of cannabis. Additionally, employers can refuse to hire, discharge, discipline, or take other adverse employment action against an individual because of their use, possession, or distribution of cannabis. Employers retain all rights pertaining to drug testing policies. Issue 2 contains other guidance for employers and should be reviewed in its entirety and policies updated prior to its implementation date. SAMHSA Updates Mandatory Urine and Oral Fluid Guidelines October brought about an announcement that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) was updating both the Mandatory Urine (UrMG) and the Oral Fluid Mandatory Guidelines (OFMG). Each document received a number of updates, including information on how the annual drug testing panel is published, revisions to definitions, information on an authorized biomarker testing panel, updates to collection procedures, revisions to the Medical Review Officer (MRO) process, and more. Updates to the OFMG are effective as of October 10, 2023. Updates to the UrMG will take effect on February 1, 2024. Washington Limits Pre-Employment Testing for Cannabis In May, Washington state passed Senate Bill 5123 (SB 5123), limiting employer rights pertaining to pre-employment testing for cannabis and actions they can take based on positive test results. Employers are required to comply by January 1, 2024. SB 5123 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants during the hiring process if the discrimination is based on an individual’s use of cannabis off-the-job and/or a required drug test that indicates the presence of “nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites” in the hair, blood, urine, or bodily fluid. Employers are still permitted to base initial hiring decisions on drug screens that don’t screen for nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites, maintain a drug- and alcohol-free workplace, meet federal law or regulatory requirements, continue testing as normal for all situations outside of pre-employment, and test applicants for a spectrum of controlled substances, including cannabis (as long as the cannabis results cannot be provided to the employer and the tests adhere to the entirety of the law). See SB 5123 for a full list of positions for which the law does not apply. More Changes Are Coming in 2024 Already, multiple states have indicated that they will have cannabis on the ballot in 2024, and it’s likely that many states will introduce cannabis-related legislation. We will likely see even more changes in 2024, and not all of them may be favorable to employers. Employers across the country should stay vigilant, keeping abreast of progressing legislation in their state(s) as well as issues that may be voted on at the polls. Employers impacted by the 2023 changes should carefully review their drug-free workplace policies and update them where needed. Need help reviewing and updating your policy? Get in touch with policy experts at [email protected] © 2010-2024 DrugPak – No portion of this article may be reproduced, retransmitted, posted on a website, or used in any manner without the written consent of DrugPak. When permission is granted to reproduce this article in any way, full attribution to the author and copyright holder is required. |
RSS Feed
|
|