DMERx: The Software Put an Examination on Paper

DMERx fraud produced false doctors’ orders used to bill Medicare and other insurers more than $1 billion, according to the Justice Department’s criminal trial accounts. The software-generated orders claimed a doctor had examined and treated beneficiaries. The orders moved through a business connecting marketers, telemedicine companies, durable medical equipment suppliers and pharmacies. A doctor’s signature gave the paperwork an appearance of clinical support. Suppliers and pharmacies then used the orders to bill insurers for medically unnecessary products. For an insider who knows how those forms were created, the software itself can tell part of the story.

What DMERx Connected

DMERx connected the businesses buying doctors’ orders with telemedicine companies supplying signatures. In its June 2025 criminal trial announcement, the Justice Department described an internet platform operated by Power Mobility Doctor Rx, LLC that generated false orders for orthotic braces, pain creams and other items.

The recruitment began with misleading mailers, television advertisements and calls from offshore call centers. Hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries supplied personal information and agreed to accept medically unnecessary products. Telemedicine companies accepted kickbacks for signed orders transmitted through DMERx. The operators received payments for arranging those transactions and referring the completed orders to suppliers, pharmacies and marketers.

Those roles matter to someone inside the business. A call-center employee sees recruitment and the products being offered. A practitioner sees the information presented for review and the assertion attached to a signature. A software employee sees the form and its routing. The durable medical equipment supplier or pharmacy sees the order used to support its claim.

The industry’s structure helps explain why the evidence is spread out. A telehealth platform, the professional practice providing care and the business billing for a product can be separate organizations. Their records answer different questions: what the patient said, what the clinician did, what the software produced and what the insurer paid. In DMERx, the criminal trial accounts connect those pieces through the sale of completed orders.

The HealthSplash Owner

HealthSplash acquired Power Mobility Doctor Rx in September 2017. The Justice Department’s May 2026 criminal trial account identified HealthSplash’s founder, owner and CEO as an operator of the scheme who connected pharmacies, suppliers and marketers with telemedicine companies, taking a cut in exchange for referrals. A jury convicted the owner for his role in the criminal conspiracies.

The acquisition and the referrals explain why the software business belongs in the story. Its owner participated in arranging the transactions that gave the generated orders a buyer.

The Power Mobility Doctor Rx CEO

The separate June 2025 criminal trial account described the Power Mobility Doctor Rx CEO’s work coordinating kickback transactions and referring completed doctors’ orders. A jury convicted him for his role in the scheme.

The Software Company’s Vice President

The software and services company’s vice president pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud.

The VA inspector general’s account of the plea described his participation in operating the false-order platform and recruiting beneficiaries to accept unnecessary braces, creams and other items. It identified VA among the federal programs affected.

DMERx Fabricated Exam Software and the Undercover Beneficiary

The undercover transaction showed how a sales call became a signed order claiming clinical tests. The Justice Department’s May 2026 account described testimony and evidence from an undercover agent who posed as a Medicare beneficiary. A foreign call center pushed the agent to agree to multiple braces. A doctor then signed bogus orders using DMERx.

One order claimed tests that could only be performed in person, although the doctor had never spoken with the supposed patient. The paperwork supplied an examination that the encounter could not possibly support.

The same trial account described doctors being paid to sign orders without meaningful interaction with beneficiaries, sometimes without any interaction, and without regard to medical necessity. The superseding indictment alleged mandatory form language asserting examinations and treatment, along with reimbursement-driven order construction.

For a software or clinical operations insider, the mismatch raises a question: where did the examination finding come from? A template, the information supplied to the signer and the final signed order can show whether a finding came from a clinician’s work or appeared as part of producing the form. The undercover transaction made that mismatch concrete.

The Order Was the Product

A signed order can finance a telemedicine business even when the money is collected through somebody else’s equipment or pharmacy claim. In DMERx, the criminal trial accounts describe suppliers and pharmacies paying kickbacks for orders, then billing Medicare and other insurers for the products.

That commercial arrangement also appears in the HHS inspector general’s July 2022 telemedicine alert. The alert describes companies recruiting patients and practitioners, supplying information for review, compensating the practitioner and moving the resulting orders to downstream buyers. The party paying for a practitioner’s work can therefore be different from the patient or the insurer paying for an encounter.

This changes what an insider’s records can reveal. The clinician’s fee, the signed order and the supplier’s claim connect the sale of the paperwork to the insurer’s payment.

Taxpayers paid for unnecessary products, and Medicare beneficiaries’ names went on orders claiming care they never received. The transaction depended on making the clinical work appear to have happened.

Jackson & Coker LocumTenens separately settled civil allegations over its role in procuring medically unnecessary orders. The staffing company earned fees for approved orders without itself billing Medicare.

Sham Contracts and Order Changes That Hid the Scheme

The DMERx criminal trial evidence showed efforts to conceal both the payments and the paperwork. The Justice Department’s June 2025 account described sham contracts and the removal of wording that a co-conspirator feared would prompt Medicare to audit equipment suppliers. Its May 2026 account likewise described manipulating doctors’ orders to avoid Medicare audits.

That makes the history of an order important. The final version shows what the supplier received. Earlier versions, editing instructions and the people approving the changes can explain why the language changed. In this case, the government’s account connected the editing to avoiding scrutiny of the suppliers.

The same applies to the contracts. We examine what the agreement called the service alongside the transaction it paid for: a review, a completed order, a referral or another defined piece of work. In the DMERx account, the payment bought access to signed orders and the operators took their share for arranging it.

DMERx Claims Billed and Insurer Payments

False examination records drew hundreds of millions in insurer payments. The Justice Department’s June 3, 2025 criminal trial announcement reported more than $360 million paid by Medicare and other insurers. Its May 14, 2026 trial announcement reported more than $450 million paid.

The department’s 2023 charging summary had alleged over $1.963 billion in billings.

For an insider, the useful connection runs from the specific order to the claim and the payment. That connection shows how a false examination statement reached an insurer’s money.

What Evidence Is Needed to Prove Fraud?

Our whistleblower experts work with you to connect the patient’s experience to the signed examination claim and the money behind it. Call records, templates and signed orders can expose the gap between what the patient experienced and what the paperwork says. In DMERx, the undercover agent’s experience made that gap visible.

We connect that comparison with the contracts, payments and supplier claims. An employee who knows how those records fit together can explain something that a finished order alone conceals. A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.

In the Real Time Physicians criminal case, prosecutors alleged that the software let doctors sign prepared orders without opening the clinical material.

DMERx adds the specific comparison with an undercover beneficiary. A form can look complete while describing clinical work that never occurred. Platform employees, clinical reviewers and supplier staff may each know a different part of how it became complete.

You Know How the Order Was Made

If you know who filled in the examination, arranged the signature or paid for the completed order, speak with our whistleblower experts about how the orders were made. We build your strongest telehealth fraud whistleblower case with you, bring in telehealth fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand software-generated orders and kickback payments, and stay beside you through the pursuit of a recovery.