WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 6119

Labor: fair employment practices; certain noncompete agreements for physicians; prohibit. Amends sec. 4a of 1984 PA 274 (MCL 445.774a).

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Joe Aragona and 2 co-sponsors

Michigan would ban noncompete agreements for physicians with employers or subsidiaries that have annual revenue over $2B, unless the new-employee restriction also applies to equall

bill electronically reproduced 06/18/2026
#healthoccupations:physicians #labor:fairemploymentpractices #trade:antitrust
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6119

Summary of HB 6119 (Michigan, 2025-2026)

Purpose and intent

  • The bill amends Section 4a of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (1984 PA 274) to restrict noncompete agreements for physicians in certain situations.
  • The overarching aim is to limit the use of physician noncompete clauses by large health care employers or their subsidiaries, balancing employers’ legitimate business interests with physicians’ ability to practice medicine and pursue new employment opportunities.

Key provisions and changes

  1. General framework for noncompetes (existing provision retained)

    • Employers may obtain from an employee a noncompete or covenant that protects reasonable competitive business interests, prohibiting post-employment engagement in employment or a line of business if reasonable in duration, geography, and type of work.
    • Courts may reform an otherwise-unreasonable noncompete to make it reasonable and enforce it as so limited.

  2. Scope and applicability (dates)

    • Subsection (1) and the general noncompete framework apply to covenants entered into after March 29, 1985.

  3. Physician-specific restriction (new limitation)

    • Subsection (3) prohibits an employer or a subsidiary with annual revenue over $2,000,000,000.00 (i.e., $2B) from obtaining a noncompete from a physician, except as provided in subsection (4).
    • Any noncompete with a physician that was entered into before the enactment of this amendatory act and is contrary to this prohibition is void.

  4. Narrow exception for high-revenue employers (subsection 4)

    • An employer or subsidiary described in subsection (3) may obtain a physician noncompete only if the agreement expressly prohibits the physician from engaging in employment with another employer that also has annual revenue over $2,000,000,000.00 or a subsidiary of such an employer.
    • This creates a constraint that noncompetes are permissible only when the alternative employment opportunity is with an equally large (or larger) entity, effectively limiting cross-sector mobility unless the potential new employer meets the same revenue threshold.

  5. Definition of physician (subsection 5)

    • For purposes of this section, “physician” means the definition set forth in section 17001 of the Public Health Code (1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17001).

Who is affected

  • Physicians practicing in Michigan who are employed by or seeking employment with large health care employers or their subsidiaries (annual revenue > $2B).
  • Large health care employers and subsidiaries with annual revenue exceeding $2B that employ or seek to employ physicians. These entities would face a prohibition on obtaining noncompete agreements with physicians, except under the narrow condition described in subsection (4).
  • Other employees not classified as physicians, and smaller employers, would continue to be governed by the general noncompete provisions unless otherwise limited by the new physician-specific restrictions.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • The bill was introduced and referred to the Committee on Government Operations on June 18, 2026.
  • If enacted, the changes would apply to physician noncompete agreements governed by the amended section 4a, with the key date distinction centering on whether an agreement is entered into after the enactment or is a pre-existing arrangement (which would be void if it conflicts with the new prohibitions).
  • The bill’s effective date is not stated in the text provided; typically, enacted bills specify an effective date (often a set date or upon enactment).

Notable details

  • The $2,000,000,000 (two billion dollars) annual revenue threshold is central to the physician-specific restrictions.
  • The bill preserves the possibility of limiting a noncompete to make it reasonable but tightens the use of such agreements with physicians in large health care organizations.
  • The definition of “physician” follows the Public Health Code, ensuring alignment with existing statutory definitions.

If you’d like, I can provide a side-by-side comparison with current law or a plain-language Q&A to help stakeholders interpret how this would affect specific employment setups.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.