To amend sections 340.02 and 340.036 of the Revised Code regarding the composition of boards of alcohol, drug addiction, and mental health services and regarding board contracts.
HB515 revises Ohio law governing county and multi-county alcohol, drug addiction, and mental health services boards. The bill changes how board size is selected and adjusted, allowing boards to be structured as 18, 15, 14, 12, or 9 members, with county commissioners able to choose among those options and later revisit the decision no more than once every four years. If a size change would reduce membership, vacancies are simply left unfilled. Before implementing a change, county commissioners must send a representative to a board meeting to solicit feedback, and any change must be adopted by resolution and reported to the Department of Behavioral Health.
The bill also updates board membership and conflict-of-interest rules. It retains residency and appointment requirements, but clarifies that board composition should reflect the political party preferences of the district’s population based on recent election results, and it continues to require representation from clinicians, service recipients, and family members for both mental health and addiction perspectives. It also preserves restrictions preventing board members or employees from having certain relationships with contracted providers or county commissioners, and it maintains term limits, vacancy procedures, training requirements, and removal rules.
On contracting, HB515 expands and clarifies the authority and obligations of boards when purchasing services. Boards must contract for the continuum of care with public, private, nonprofit, for-profit, and faith-based entities, while ensuring providers are properly licensed or certified where required. The bill requires boards to consider cost-effectiveness, quality, and continuity of care, and it allows utilization review processes. It also adds contract provisions for early termination with at least 30 days’ notice, an appeal process to the terminating party’s governing board, and a 60-day transition-of-care period in certain termination or nonrenewal situations. Competitive selection remains optional, but if used it must include notice, eligibility criteria, selection criteria, timelines, and conflict-of-interest protections.
The bill’s impact on state law is to give local commissioners more flexibility over the size of behavioral health boards while tightening procedural requirements around board changes and contracting. It would amend Revised Code sections 340.02 and 340.036, affecting county commissioners, board members, behavioral health providers, and the Department of Behavioral Health. It also interacts with existing licensing and certification requirements for service providers and preserves the state’s framework for local behavioral health governance.
Because the bill was only introduced and no committee testimony or votes are available, there is no recorded public sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the likely areas of debate are board governance and local control versus continuity and representation, as well as the contracting provisions that explicitly protect for-profit, nonprofit, and faith-based providers and require transition and appeal rights when contracts are ended or not renewed.
HB515 would amend Ohio Revised Code sections 340.02 and 340.036 to change the composition, appointment, and operating rules for alcohol, drug addiction, and mental health services boards, and to revise the rules governing board contracts with service providers. It would give county commissioners more discretion to set board size, add procedural steps before changing board membership, and impose updated contracting, notice, transition-of-care, and competitive-selection requirements that affect local boards, providers, and the Department of Behavioral Health.
No votes or committee testimony are included, so there is no documented legislative sentiment in the provided record. The bill appears procedural and administrative in nature, with an emphasis on local flexibility, provider access, and continuity of care, which may appeal to supporters of local control and broader contracting options. At the same time, the explicit protections for faith-based and for-profit providers, along with the board-size changes, could draw scrutiny from those concerned about governance balance, representation, or privatization.
The main points of contention are likely to be the reduction and restructuring of board membership, the requirement that board composition reflect political party preferences, and the contracting provisions that prohibit discrimination against for-profit, nonprofit, and faith-based entities. Stakeholders who favor stronger public-sector oversight or a narrower provider network may object to the broader contracting language, while county officials may support the added flexibility in board size. Providers may focus on the new early-termination, appeal, and transition-of-care requirements, which create additional procedural protections but also new contractual obligations.