Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/9599

Bill Overview

Title: Heidi’s Law

Description: This bill revises the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs to include testing for methadone and newly identified drug substances. The Department of Health and Human Services must revise the guidelines to (1) expand the opiate category on the list of substances authorized for testing to include methadone, and (2) add any new drugs which may not have been previously included on such list. The Department of Transportation must update its regulations containing procedures for transportation employee workplace drug and alcohol testing programs to include testing for methadone and newly identified drug substances.

Sponsors: Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals subject to federal workplace drug testing

Estimated Size: 25000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Train Engineer (New York, NY)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I understand the need for safety in workplaces, especially in transportation.
  • The inclusion of methadone in testing worries me about job security despite following my prescribed treatment plan.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 4 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 7

Federal Employee - Administrative Assistant (Chicago, IL)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned that this policy will mean I need to quit using recreational drugs or face potential job issues.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Pipeline Operator (Houston, TX)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy doesn't affect me directly, but I support efforts to maintain safety in our industry.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried about my medical marijuana use being flagged and how this policy might impact my job.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Policy Maker (Washington, DC)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe this policy strengthens our commitment to a safe workplace.
  • However, I am aware of the medical nuances related to methadone.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 9
Year 2 9 9
Year 3 9 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Airline Pilot Trainee (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I understand the need for stringent testing, especially in my field, but I worry about false positives affecting my career.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Maritime Safety Inspector (Seattle, WA)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I support this policy because it ensures workplace safety, even if not a concern for my own position.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Long-haul Truck Driver (Miami, FL)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I adhere to my treatment plan, but I'm frightened this policy may unjustly put my job at risk.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 8 8

Federal Researcher (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 33 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This step adds valuable safety but should be balanced with understanding addiction recovery treatment.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

IT Support for Federal Network (Boston, MA)

Age: 25 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy seems strict but necessary for federal employees and public safety. I'm mindful about my recreational habits.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)

Year 2: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $50000000)

Year 3: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $50000000)

Year 5: $37000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $52000000)

Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $55000000)

Year 100: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $55000000)

Key Considerations