Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Florida, Kentucky and Drug Testing

Conservatives have gone viral recently in places like Facebook with this simplistic little diddy on drug testing welfare reciepients:
THANK YOU FLORIDA AND KENTUCKY!!!! Florida and Kentucky the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare, effective July 1st! Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's OK to drug test the people who work for their money but not those who don't? Re-post if you want all states to do this.
I love their rhetorical question: How can this be unconstitution? The question is followed by a piece of misinformation: It's OK to drug test the people who work...

The truth is it's not always "OK" (I think that's code for "constitutional") to test people who work. In the private sector it's a contractional agreement that you enter into before you take a job. You enter into it voluntarily (since you could choose to go work omewhere else, instead). If you work for the government, the courts have ruled that you can be required to take drug tests if your job performance could endanger public safety. Washington can drug test air traffic controllers, but not clerical staff.

Many of the viral status updates that Conservatives circulate make perfect sense - as long as you believe the little untruth planted at the heart of them (in this case,"It's OK to drug test the people who work..."). And if you're well informed on the issue, that little piece of untruth is usually easy to spot.

The "drug test for welfare" issue has been around for a long time now. I wrote this about it over three years ago here.

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients?

A friend and colleague of mine sent me this email. I thought I'd post it here, along with my response to her...
THE JOB - URINE TEST


(I sure would like to know who wrote this one! They deserve a HUGE pat on the back!)

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me.

I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.

I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their rearends, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though . ....Something has to change in this country -- and soon!


I replied back to her as follows:

A couple of thoughts.

1. I don't remember the last time I peed in a cup. But it was at a doctor's office. And the results were a private matter between my doctor and I, under HIPPA. Something, I suspect, to do with sugar or kidney function. But, like I said, I don't remember. I've NEVER had to provide a urine sample for some reason related to work, anywhere.

2. Drug testing is usually a safety issue, or an issue related to profitability in the contexts of a free (voluntary) association between an employer and an employee. There are jobs where the risks involved to public safety are deemed to be large enough to justify invading someone's privacy with a drug test. Major transportation jobs, like air traffic control or work as a pilot, are good examples. For profit companies that feel that drug use among employees may reduce profits sometimes advertise a drug free policy that requires drug testing; employees freely enter into that relationship and agree to abide by the drug testing as a contractual aspect of their employment. In some industries, like mining, the two reasons for drug testing overlap.

3. Food stamps, AFDC, Free Lunch at school (which I'd assume qualifies conceptually as a welfare program), disability payments, Medicaid (a need-based subsidy), the Pell Grant - none of these place the recipient of the funding in either of the above two categories. There is no justification for weakening the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search - except bigotry against the poor. With an air traffic controller or a police officer who carries a gun, the courts have ruled I think that a personal search (by means of a urine test) is REASONABLE, given the risks and responsibilities of the job.

4. If drug use is a moral/legal issue that doesn't seem to be being adequately addressed where you live, there are laws and there are law enforcement agencies that the issue can be pointed out to.

5. The idea that we might cut off food stamps and Free Lunch to some of the kids on my monthly report (picture the two freckle-faced boys, or the redheaded girl in the fourth grade with two siblings in lower grades) because mom pops positive for THC on a urine test at DHHR strikes me as, well, almost fascist. Of course, we could just take her kids, but that would mean finding more foster parents and creating a bigger government to cope with all the new drug orphans.

How about if we just let police and judges do their jobs in the community, and stick with the protections offered by the Fourth Amendment...?

My thoughts,

Greg


Don't get me wrong. Drugs are a horrible plague on society. Call me a liberal, but I just don't think the solution is bringing an end to the right to avoid self-incrimination, repealing privacy laws, or punishing children for what their parents do.

Thursday, July 5, 2007

What PEIA Won't Pay For...

I don’t really like being on the phone – which is not to say that I dislike it, I just prefer to be face-to-face with people. But, I spent about two hours on the phone Tuesday anyway and another 90 minutes today trying to get my health insurance providers to pay for a drug.

My family is covered through PEIA, the West Virginia Public Employees Insurance Agency. It went like this…

We called our pharmacy and asked them to refill a new anti-smoking drug, Chantix. When I went to pick it up on July 3rd I learned that:

  • July 1st marked the start of a new plan year so I had to pay my deductible on prescriptions again.
  • The co-pay has gone up on brand name drugs from $30 to $50 per month's worth.
  • The insurance company had not reauthorized Chantix.


Sometimes that’s a matter of paperwork. PEIA farms out management of prescription services to a company called Express Scripts. I called them. My wife had already called them once and been told to call a tobacco-free hotline; it was a dead end and, later we learned, it was a contractor who had stopped dealing with West Virginia employees some seven or eight months earlier. Express Scripts was giving out the wrong contact number for “step two” in this process.

During the course of the day Tuesday I spoke to Bob, Linda, and Sherri at Express-Scripts. I learned to get their phone extension out of them before I hung up so that the possibility existed that I might speak with the same person a second time if I had to call them back.

Eventually we figured out that we needed to be talking to the people at the Free & Clear Quit for Life Program. The people at Express-Scripts told me that Free & Clear had the power to reauthorize the medication. The people at Free & Clear didn’t know that Express-Scripts existed. And the people at Free & Clear thought that their job was to pass information along to Rational Drug Therapy at the West Virginia University School of Pharmacy so that they could decide whether to reauthorize the drug. (Rational Drug Therapy, incidentally, doesn’t speak directly with patients.)

Linda, a "patient care advocate" at Express-Scripts, was eventually convinced to read me my benefits. She’d been trying to convince me that we could have a 90 supply of Chantix, but that we had to wait a year before they’d pay for it again (even though the drug’s manufacturer says at their website that if you’ve quit at the end of the 90 day course you should ask your doctor if it would benefit you to take the drug for another 90 days). When she read me the description of benefits it stated that Express-Scripts would pay for a 90 course of the drug three times in the life of a patient and only once per plan year. Her conclusion was that I’d have to wait a year. I pointed out that the plan year had just changed, that it was now a new plan year and that I wanted the 90 days for this plan year to now be authorized. She was confused; she agreed that it was a new plan year, but was skeptical that the drug would be reauthorized.

The last person I spoke to Tuesday was Mary at Free & Clear. God bless Mary. She read me what the contract between PEIA (she’d never heard of Express-Scripts) and Free & Clear. That contract said that Free & Clear wasn’t supposed to authorize the drug if a patient had received the drug within the last 12 month. I told her what Linda had said. Mary “escalated” my case to her supervisor to try and resolve exactly what our benefits were, evidently spent an hour or more in research and in discussions up the chain of her command, and called me back at 8pm at night. Rational Drug Therapy doesn’t take her phone calls after 2:30 in the afternoon, so it was already too late to get the drug reauthorized Tuesday, but Mary said someone from her office would call Rational Drug Therapy today for me, and suggested I call PEIA’s customer service number (which she gave me).

Customer service was closed…

Today I talked to Judy at Free & Clear. For 75 minutes the Free & Clear people worked with us to determine if there was a way to get the prescription reauthorized (covered by our insurance). Eventually Judy decided that the best approach was to call the pharmacy side of Express Scripts and have a conference call with them so that I could be on the line. Kendra there at Express Scripts told us the computer had rejected the authorization. Kendra read the rules about authorizing the drug – a different set of rules (different verbiage) than what Free & Clear had. With Judy from Free & Clear on the phone, Kendra gave us the toll free phone number for the West Virginia Tobacco Quit Line. (The Quit Line told me Tuesday that they couldn’t understand why Express Scripts still gave out their number since PEIA decided seven or eight months ago to do business with Free & Clear instead of them.)

So I have three different versions of what benefits we are supposed to have regarding Chantix:

  • Linda’s (at Express Scripts) version that she read from her computer screen, which says that we can get it three times in our life, but no more than once per plan year. Plan years align with fiscal years.
  • Free & Clear’s version, which says that they’re supposed to ask if you’ve taken the drug in the last year and they’re suppose to say “no” to reauthorizing it if you say “yes” to that question.
  • And Kendra’s (also at Express Script, but on the pharmacist’s side of it) who says that the medicine can be prescribe for 90 days in a 365-day period.


Kendra’s version is open enough to interpretation to be compatible with either the Free & Clear version or Linda’s version.

Bottom line, I don’t really know what our benefits are and if I have our benefits spelled out in writing somewhere, I don’t know about it. I called the PEIA customer service line to ask about it and a recording told me to leave my name and number.

It was an incredible exercise in getting the run around. And PEIA never returned my phone calls, so I guess I'll try them again tomorrow...