Citation

Zwerling CS, Ryan J, Orav EJ. J. Am. Med. Assoc. JAMA 1992; 267(1): 91-93.

Affiliation

Department of Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1992, American Medical Association)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

1727203

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--This study provides a cost-benefit analysis of preemployment drug screening and evaluates the sensitivity of this analysis to variation in its underlying assumptions. DESIGN--Cost-benefit analysis, based on a cohort analytic study previously reported. SETTING--Employees of the US Postal Service in Boston, Mass. PARTICIPANTS--Estimates of costs and benefit are based on a cohort of 2533 postal workers in Boston and on average costs for the Postal Service in Boston and nationwide. RESULTS--Drug screening would have saved the Postal Service $162 per applicant hired. However, these results were sensitive to the assumptions in the model. If the prevalence of drug use in the population screened were 1% rather than 12%, the program would lose money. Similarly, if the cost per urine sample screened were $95 rather than the $49 assumed, then the program would lose money, even if the prevalence of drug positives was as high as 9%. CONCLUSIONS--Because of the sensitivity of this analysis to changes in its underlying assumptions, any company considering preemployment drug screening should carefully weigh the costs and benefits in its own industry.