Bcom_275_Week_Five_Final

II. Money      A. States participating in this law are saving money.             a.  Under this new law, applicants must cover the expense of the mandatory drug test.            b.  The state will reimburse the individual for the expense of the test and provide them with welfare benefits if they pass the test; applicants will be denied all benefits for a year’s time if the test is failed.          B. States participating in this law are not saving money.             a.  Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the expense, an average of $30; the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the individuals who failed the test. As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780 on average. b. It has been reported the law "has led to a dramatic 48 percent drop in monthly approvals, an overall drug-related denial rate of 19 percent, and almost $1.8 million in savings to taxpayers." The state has only paid out $57,000 in reimbursements to applicants who passed the test, even though more than 7,000 people have done so. If each is repaid as they're supposed to be, reimbursement costs should average roughly $210,000. Previous back-of-the-envelope estimates have suggested the program's reimbursement costs could nearly outstrip its savings. What is the main driver of insisting that those who on receiving welfare or any form of government assistance, why would there be a need to ensure that there are no participants who are using drugs' Money as in most situations is the motivating factor pushing this idea of drug testing welfare recipients within different states around the country. This idea has it merits and we are going to work through the pros and the cons of what the facts bear out in order to come to a conclusion. There are more individuals claiming unemployment due to the recent economic debacle that occurred in 2008. Because of this massive influx of welfare recipients the states are having a hard time financially keeping up and one method that they have considered is to mandate that those who are taking government money need to submit to a drug test in order to maintain that assistance. This test is something that the individual must pay for, ranging from $35 to $75 per test, and because of this expense many have dropped off the unemployment roll presumable for an inability to pass. A drug test is something that many in the workforce have to comply with and therefore the logic dictates that if you are actively looking for a position then the ability to pass a drug screening should be a qualifier for the government assistance “To receive unemployment, people must not only be actively seeking work, but must also make themselves able and available to work any job. Failing a drug test, or even refusing to take one, could be interpreted as a violation of those terms.” http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/01/unemployed-drug-users-in-ga-risk-benefits/#ixzz1yf48lavF The idea of maintaining a drug free applicant pool also will reduce the cost, in theory, by providing a hirable group of individuals who are already known to be drug free and testing would no longer be required. Once an individual has passed the screening and have shown that they are not abusing illegal substances there will be reimbursement for their out of pocket expenses and will be paid for the cost of the testing, those who test positive however will be denied benefits and no reimbursement will be issued. This is one of the driving points in the concept of mandating those on welfare submit to this drug testing program “Supporters say cutting off the cash for known drug users would not only ease pressure on the state's bank account, but also prevent what they say amounts to fraud.”  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/01/unemployed-drug-users-in-ga-risk-benefits/#ixzz1yfBJl1ad No one wants the tax dollars we send to the federal or state government to be used to facilitate someone’s drug habit so in theory this law would reduce the amount of taxpayer money paying for an individual’s habit. Once we delve into the numbers however this idea of not abetting a welfare recipients drug habits by mandating screenings does not appear to be such a clear cut case. Do to the fact that those who pass the testing are reimbursed there would have to be a certain level who fail in order to maintain positive overall cash benefit. “Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said. As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html'_r=1 The amount for reimbursements being higher than what would have originally been paid in government aid makes the point mute and a overall waste of taxpayer money. With the monthly costs of reimbursement outweighing the overall savings of the program there is a fundamental flaw in the math and this can be seen in “Bragdon's report says the state has only paid out $57,000 in reimbursements to applicants who passed the test, even though more than 7,000 people have done so. If each is repaid as they're supposed to be, reimbursements should run roughly $210,000. Previous back-of-the-envelope estimates have suggested the program's reimbursement costs could nearly outstrip its savings.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/rick-scott-drug-test-welfare_n_1031024.html This coupled with the fact that there are many who opted out of the testing, as was seen in Florida, “From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html'_r=1. The actual usage rates are on par or below the national average and can be for multiple reasons besides the testing positive. It could be a hurdle for individuals to pay the $30-$75 dollars a test or many may feel that it is a violation of their constitutional rights to be forced to take a test to receive welfare. But all this does not mask the fact that the actual savings to Joe and Jane taxpayer simply are not there. It is more expensive as a whole to peruse this program and albeit a well thought out sound bite in principle, in practice it is a much muddier concept. References; Rick Scott's Welfare Drug Test Saves No Money: Judge Written by Arthur Delaney First Posted: 10/26/11 04:07 PM ET Updated: 12/25/11 05:12 AM ET http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/rick-scott-drug-test-welfare_n_1031024.html No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests Written by By LIZETTE ALVAREZ Published: April 17, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html'_r=1 Unemployed drug users in Ga. risk benefits Written by The Associated Press Published June 01, 2012 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/01/unemployed-drug-users-in-ga-risk-benefits/