Counties warned of tight timelines, contract limits and staffing uncertainty under Iowa behavioral‑health realignment

County elected officials and regional CEOs said the legislative change creates a narrow window for contracts, a compressed procurement timeline, and uncertainty about where county employees and budgets will land.

Russell Wood, CEO of Central Iowa Community Services, told attendees that the law prevents regions from entering contracts that extend beyond June 30 of next fiscal year and urged counties to avoid obligations that could conflict with the transition. He emphasized that regions must plan now to ensure continuity of care and avoid payment disruptions to providers.

May Henin, CEO of the Mental Health and Disability Services — East Central Region, said there will be two procurement processes—one for ADRCs and one for Behavioral Health ASOs—each with a scope of work that should clarify which entities are responsible for particular functions. She said service‑coordination responsibilities remain under discussion and could be split between ADRCs and Behavioral Health ASOs depending on the scope.

Employment and budgeting implications: Speakers clarified employees will be employed by the ASO that holds the contract or by a county/contractor designated by the ASO, not by the state. "The employees would be employed of whoever the ASO identifies but they will not be state employees," May Henin said. Presenters warned that counties preparing budgets may not know their future employee costs and recommended placeholder budgets and conversations with county auditors.

Key deadlines and process steps: Presenters said the department must file a transition plan by July, will solicit public feedback on draft maps in July with a final map by Aug. 1, and that district assignments are expected by Dec. 31. The timeline aims for phased ASO implementation by July 1, 2025, with a transition year to reduce service disruption.

What counties should do now: Presenters urged county supervisors to consult county attorneys about levy and spending authority, review draft maps, engage with CEOs and boards about corporate structure options (including 28E agreements or forming nonprofits), and discuss contingency budgeting to accommodate uncertain staffing outcomes.

Closing note: Presenters reiterated that the department is aiming for a "no‑harm" transition that preserves provider payments and service continuity, but they said many operational details will be defined only in upcoming RFPs and department guidance.