A 19-Year Sentence for a Software Owner: What Telemedicine Platforms and Health Tech Vendors Face in a Federal Medicare Fraud Case

On October 14, 2026, a federal judge sentenced the owner of a health care software company to 19 years in prison. He never billed Medicare. He did not own a durable medical equipment supplier, and he did not sign a single doctor's order. What he owned was the platform: an internet system that, according to the Justice Department, generated the orders and prescriptions that suppliers used to bill Medicare and other federal programs more than $1 billion for orthotic braces. If you build or run technology that touches telehealth ordering or DME documentation, this sentence is about you.

The platform owner never billed Medicare. The government's theory reached him through the system that generated the orders.

Key Takeaways

• A health care software owner received 19 years in October 2026 for a platform that generated false Medicare orders, without billing Medicare himself.
• The convictions rested on conspiracy statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1349 and 18 U.S.C. 371, which reach anyone who knowingly joins the scheme, not only the biller.
• Payments routed through software for signed orders implicate the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b, even when described as technology or service fees.
• The case was tried in the Southern District of Florida and investigated with the FBI Miami Field Office, the epicenter of federal telemedicine fraud enforcement.
• Platform owners are exposed to loss calculations built from total billings across every supplier on the system, which is how sentences reach two decades.

What Happened

The platform's chief executive was convicted at trial in 2025 in the Southern District of Florida and sentenced in December 2025 to 15 years. The owner was tried separately. After a 23-day jury trial that ended in April 2026, he was convicted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks, and conspiracy to defraud the United States and make false statements in connection with health care matters. Restitution and forfeiture will be set later.

The government's description of the scheme is specific. Marketers targeted Medicare beneficiaries through mailers, television ads, and overseas call centers. The platform produced doctors' orders falsely indicating that examinations had occurred. Telemedicine companies were paid to have physicians sign them. Suppliers and pharmacies billed more than $1 billion, and the government says more than $450 million was paid, with braces billed for more than 346,000 beneficiaries. The release also says the participants used sham contracts and stripped telemedicine references from the orders so the claims would not draw an audit.

What the Government Is Building

This prosecution is part of a deliberate shift up the chain. For years the visible defendants in brace cases were supplier owners and the physicians whose signatures sat on the orders. The government now treats the infrastructure as the target: the platforms that route orders, the marketing companies that buy leads, and the vendors that format documentation for billing.

Agents do not need a cooperating doctor to open a platform case. Claims data shows which ordering physicians, suppliers, and beneficiaries cluster around a single system, and the platform's own logs, templates, and edit histories become the core exhibits.

"For anyone running health tech in South Florida, the practical point is that your database is the government's best witness, and it cannot be cross-examined."— Aaron M. Cohen, Principal Attorney

Expect the same theory in adjacent markets: genetic testing order portals, compounded-drug telehealth intake, and software that generates medical necessity language for skin substitutes and lab tests.

Exposure and Charges

Conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud is charged under 18 U.S.C. 1349, which carries the maximum of the underlying offense. Because wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343 carries 20 years, a combined conspiracy count reaches 20 years. Health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1347 carries 10 years per count. The kickback and false-statement conspiracies run under 18 U.S.C. 371 with a five-year cap each, and the substantive offenses behind them are the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b and false statements relating to health care matters under 18 U.S.C. 1035. A parallel civil case under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 typically follows.

How Platform Sentences Reach Two Decades

The sentencing math is where platform cases become severe. Under Section 2B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, loss drives the offense level, and relevant conduct can sweep in every claim within the scope of the jointly undertaken activity. A supplier owner is usually sentenced on his own company's billings. A platform owner can be sentenced on the billings of every supplier that used the system. That is how a case reaches a $1 billion intended loss figure and a 19-year sentence. Notice also that the platform's executive, sentenced first, received 15 years; the owner who went to trial later received four more.

A supplier owner is usually sentenced on his own company's billings. A platform owner can be sentenced on the billings of every supplier that used the system.

Two pending developments bear on that number. The Supreme Court heard argument on October 13, 2026 on how much deference courts owe the Guidelines commentary, and much of the intended-loss framework sits in that commentary. The amended loss table also takes effect November 1, 2026 and applies by sentencing date. A sentencing guidelines calculation in any pending health care fraud case should account for both.

Critical Mistakes People Make Early

The first mistake is believing a vendor contract is a defense. Calling payments a technology fee does not answer the Anti-Kickback Statute when the fee tracks the volume of signed orders that generate federal claims.

The second is changing the product after you learn of an investigation. Removing fields, rewriting templates, or deleting logs after a subpoena or a call from an agent looks like the concealment the government described in this case, and it can add an obstruction charge.

FBI agents at your door asking how the order system works are not gathering background.

The third is talking to agents. FBI agents at your door asking how the order system works are not gathering background. A careless answer is a separate crime under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

The fourth is waiting for a letter from the U.S. Attorney. By the time a target letter arrives, the government usually has the claims data, the bank records, and your platform's history.

A Strategic Defense Approach

Platform cases are won or narrowed before indictment. A federal criminal defense attorney retained early can establish what the system did, who controlled the templates, and how fees were calculated, then present that record to the prosecutor while the theory is still forming. A grand jury subpoena response built with counsel can preserve the defense instead of supplying the government's chronology.

Cooperation is a real decision. Platform owners sit at the center of the network and have information the government wants about suppliers, marketers, and telemedicine companies. That leverage should be priced with a white collar defense attorney before any proffer session, because the timing of cooperation affects its value under 5K1.1 and the 3553(a) factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553.

Why Timing Matters Right Now

The government is working through the network that surrounded this platform, and suppliers, marketers, and physicians who used similar systems should assume their records are already under review. If you are under federal investigation, the period before charges is the only time a defense lawyer can shape what the case becomes, and in the Southern District of Florida that window is often shorter than people expect.

Common Questions

Facing a Federal Telemedicine or DME Fraud Investigation in Florida?

If you run a telehealth platform, an ordering vendor, a DME supplier, or a marketing company, or you have received a subpoena, a target letter, or a visit from agents, confidential counsel early is the most useful step available to you. AMC Defense Law represents individuals and companies in federal health care fraud, Anti-Kickback Statute, and telemedicine investigations from its Boca Raton office, across the Southern District of Florida, and nationwide. Contact the firm to arrange a confidential consultation.

Platform cases are won or narrowed before indictment. Scope controls the loss figure, and the loss figure controls the sentence.

If you or your loved ones have been arrested or are under federal investigation, call Aaron M. Cohen for a confidential consultation, 24 hours a day to get help.

About the author. Aaron M. Cohen is the founder and principal attorney of AMC Defense Law, a criminal defense firm in Boca Raton, Florida, with more than 30 years of experience in state and federal courts. He is admitted to practice in Florida, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, and before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, the Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey, and the Northern District of Texas. He appears pro hac vice in other federal districts nationwide. The firm represents clients in federal investigations and prosecutions involving healthcare fraud, Anti-Kickback Statute matters, DME and telemedicine fraud, peptide and compounded-drug enforcement, controlled-substance and drug conspiracy cases, financial crimes, and complex federal litigation, in Florida and nationwide.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different, and outcomes depend on the specific facts and applicable law. If you are under investigation or facing charges, consult a qualified attorney about your particular situation.