Certified Recovery Residences:
HB 405 revises Florida law governing certified recovery residences, which are sober-living facilities that hold a certificate of compliance and are managed by a certified administrator. The bill updates the statutory definition of a “certified recovery residence” to clarify the structure of Level IV residences, describing them as residences offered, referred, or provided by a licensed service provider to patients who must live there while receiving intensive outpatient or higher levels of outpatient care. It also emphasizes that these residences are staffed 24 hours a day, combine outpatient licensable services with recovery housing, and provide no clinical services onsite.
The bill also strengthens oversight of certified recovery residences by requiring a credentialing entity to revoke a residence’s certificate of compliance if the residence willfully, knowingly, or intentionally provides false or misleading information at any time. In addition, it revises the applicability of referral restrictions involving recovery residences, carving out an exception for licensed service providers under contract with a managing entity. The act would have taken effect July 1, 2025.
HB 405 would amend sections 397.311, 397.487, and 397.4873 of the Florida Statutes, affecting the legal definition, certification standards, and referral rules for recovery residences. Its practical effect would be to clarify which facilities qualify as Level IV certified recovery residences, impose a mandatory revocation consequence for intentional misrepresentation to the credentialing entity, and narrow the reach of referral prohibitions for certain licensed providers working with managing entities. The bill primarily impacts recovery residence operators, credentialing entities, licensed service providers, and patients receiving substance use disorder treatment in residential settings.
The available record shows little direct debate or recorded vote activity, but the bill’s structure suggests a generally regulatory and compliance-focused approach rather than a controversial policy shift. By tightening definitions and requiring revocation for intentional falsehoods, the bill appears aimed at improving oversight and integrity in the recovery residence system. Its final status — dying in the Human Services Subcommittee — indicates it did not advance, but the context provided does not show organized opposition or support in the available materials.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s stricter enforcement provision and its revised treatment of referral rules. Recovery residence operators could view the mandatory revocation language as a significant penalty for misstatements, while credentialing entities and regulators may see it as necessary to deter fraud and protect residents. The referral exception for licensed service providers under contract with a managing entity may also raise questions about how broadly referral prohibitions should apply and whether the carveout creates unequal treatment among providers. No specific committee testimony or vote record is available to identify named opponents or supporters.