Drug tests

The introduction in more and more companies of drug testing programs has lead to the development of several different types of drug screens. A number of companies purchase and use those screens.  In some cases, the increased production sought by use of drug screens has not paid for the costs of performing such screens. For that reason, the cost of drug screening procedures has become an important issue. It is an issue that will require a careful cost-benefit analysis. It is an issue that demands attention to specific cost savings, the cost savings obtained by any organizations that select certain of the screening methods.The limited space for this article does not allow for a cost-benefit analysis of a large number of drug screens. For that reason, the writer has selected one of the many available drug screens. The following paragraphs will present a cost-benefit analysis of a saliva test.

Each saliva test, like each drug screen, offers a panel of drugs that might be detected by the test user. The saliva test on which this writer has chosen to focus is a 6-panel test. It is designed to detect marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamines, opiates and PCP. The popularity of this saliva test does not arise from the nature of the panel. The popularity of this saliva test derives from its convenience.

Since convenience is a difficult thing to measure, the reader can probably appreciate the elusive nature of an answer to this question: How much do instant rapid drug screens cost? Perhaps the real question should be this: How does one go about evaluating the cost involved in using any of the drug screens?

Because the saliva test, unlike the urine test, does not involve controlled collection, its use does not involve collection site fees. In addition, certain special equipment that is needed for urine tests is not needed for saliva tests.  Moreover, the user of a saliva test enjoys other cost savings. With a saliva test, the testing organization does not need to pay for same sex collectors. The expensive and complicated training given to the providers of a urine test can be eliminated by changing to a urine test.

An organization that chooses to screen by using the saliva test has little difficulty locating a site for that test. The saliva test does not introduce controversial privacy issues. In addition, the saliva test promises rapid results. The 6-panel test will give results in 10 minutes. If “time is money,” then the saliva test is a more efficient way to approach the need for drug screens.

The organization that administers a saliva test seldom needs to worry about adulteration of the test sample. It is quite difficult for a test subject to adulterate a liquid as it comes out of his or her mouth. That subject can later (about 10 minutes later) see clearly the results of the saliva test. Since the test subject can be shown the results at the testing site, lawyers lack one possible reason for initiating a possible challenge to the test results. This is a benefit that should enter into an evaluation of the test’s cost.

The principle behind the saliva test is not difficult to understand, or difficult to explain to test subjects. The final benefit of the saliva test comes from its shelf life. An organization that has purchased a saliva test has 18 to 24 months in which to use that test.