Invalid Restrictive Covenants with Physicians:
HB 485 would amend Florida’s restrictive covenant statute for physicians to make certain noncompete-style agreements void and unenforceable. Specifically, it targets covenants that prevent a physician licensed under chapters 458 or 459 from practicing medicine within a geographic area after a contract, partnership, employment, or professional relationship ends, when the physician practices a specialty in a county where one entity already employs or contracts with all physicians in that specialty. The bill states that such covenants are not supported by a legitimate business interest because they restrict patient access and increase costs.
The bill also creates a limited transition rule: if a second entity begins offering the same specialty services in that county, the restrictive covenant remains void and unenforceable for three years after that second entity starts providing those services. The act would take effect July 1, 2025. In practical terms, the bill would narrow the ability of medical employers and affiliated entities to enforce geographic practice restrictions against physicians in certain specialty markets.
HB 485 would amend section 542.336, Florida Statutes, by expanding and clarifying the circumstances under which physician restrictive covenants are invalid. It would affect physicians licensed under chapters 458 and 459, as well as medical employers, partnerships, and related or affiliated entities that use noncompete provisions in employment or contracting arrangements. The bill would limit enforcement of geographic practice restrictions in counties where a single entity controls all physicians in a specialty, and it would preserve that invalidity for a three-year period after a second competitor enters the market.
The bill text reflects a strongly pro-access, pro-competition policy position, emphasizing patient access and lower costs as reasons to void these restrictive covenants. However, there is no recorded committee transcript or vote data in the provided context, and the bill died in the Health Professions & Programs Subcommittee. That outcome suggests the proposal did not advance, but the available materials do not show direct debate or recorded opposition in the supplied record.
The central point of contention is the balance between physician mobility and employer/business interests. Supporters of the bill’s approach would likely argue that noncompete restrictions in concentrated specialty markets limit patient access and preserve monopolistic control, while opponents would likely contend that such covenants protect legitimate investments, continuity of care, and business stability. The bill specifically targets counties where one entity employs or contracts with all physicians in a specialty, which makes it especially relevant to health systems, physician groups, and affiliated entities operating in concentrated local markets.