HB 625 creates a new section of Florida Statutes governing “medspas,” defined as medical spa facilities that combine cosmetic services and medical services under the supervision of a physician licensed in Florida. The bill specifies that medspas may offer traditional spa services and noninvasive cosmetic procedures such as laser hair removal, medical-grade skin therapies, chemical peels, and cosmetic injections, but it excludes a physician’s office where such services are provided by or under the direct supervision of a physician.
The bill’s main regulatory requirement is transparency: each medspa must prominently display on its website and in a conspicuous place in the facility the supervising physician’s name, license number, and specialty certifications, along with the names and locations of any other medspas supervised by the same physician. The act would take effect July 1, 2025, and would add a new statutory framework focused on disclosure rather than licensing or operational standards.
HB 625 would amend Florida law by creating section 456.601, Florida Statutes, establishing a formal definition of medspas and imposing disclosure obligations on those facilities. It would affect medical spa operators, supervising physicians, and consumers by requiring public identification of the physician responsible for oversight and related facilities under that physician’s supervision. The bill does not appear to create new licensing requirements or substantive practice restrictions beyond the required postings.
There is limited recorded legislative discussion or voting history available for HB 625, so overall sentiment is difficult to measure. The bill died in the Health Professions & Programs Subcommittee, which suggests it did not advance through the committee process. Based on the text alone, the measure appears relatively modest and consumer-protection oriented, aimed at transparency in a growing cosmetic-medical services industry.
The main point of potential contention is the scope of regulation for medspas and whether disclosure requirements are sufficient or overly burdensome. Operators may view the posting mandates as an administrative requirement, while supporters may see them as a necessary safeguard to clarify physician oversight and help consumers identify who is responsible for services. Another possible issue is the bill’s distinction between medspas and physician offices, which could raise questions about how similar services are regulated depending on the setting.