The Utah info was cited as data supporting the contention that the cost of testing was greater than money saved. I examined the data on that basis. I was not defending the particulars of the Utah program. Indeed, if the the point of the testing is not to cull deadbeats from the welfare rolls, then it is money wasted.
In addition, the dependents are not cut off (I’m not saying they should be), which along with the substantial outlay for treatment costs and the limited six-month suspension from benefits, makes it pretty hard to justify the testing program on strictly cost-benefit grounds. In fact, it would be cheaper just to provide the drugs than test for them lol.