NHS organisations that care for millions of people in England are rejecting Palantir\u2019s patient data technology, according to freedom of information responses that reveal health bosses believe they can find better or equal alternatives in many cases.<\/p>\n
Some health bodies said the \u00a3330m federated data platform (FDP) operated by the controversial US company had made it easier to manage waiting lists and has improved surgery scheduling. But, from Gateshead to Truro, others said they were declining to use it or had carried out trials and reverted to old systems. A Suffolk trust said other systems \u201csupercede\u201d the FDP\u2019s functionality, while Greater Manchester\u2019s care board called the Palantir system \u201cduplicative\u201d and \u201cretrograde\u201d.<\/p>\n
The responses come as Andy Burnham\u2019s government faces a crunch decision about whether to exercise a break clause in the seven-year NHS-Palantir deal, which was intended to better integrate the health system\u2019s data to improve clinical accuracy and efficiency. Protests against the US firm\u2019s role have also focused on its other contracts with the Israeli military and Donald Trump\u2019s homeland security forces. There is also dispute over evidence for the system\u2019s effectiveness and public concern about the involvement in the NHS<\/a> of a company cofounded by the tech billionaire Peter Thiel, who said in 2023: \u201cThe NHS makes people sick.\u201d<\/p>\n According to more than two dozen FOI responses reviewed by the Guardian, 16 trusts and health boards declared they do not use it, following its introduction in March 2024. They include the University hospitals of North Midlands NHS trust, which said it will not use it primarily because \u201cit does not appear to provide functionality over and above what we have already\u201d and Dorset HealthCare university trust said it \u201cwill not be adopting or going live with the FDP\u201d. Humber Teaching NHS foundation trust said: \u201cWe have no plans to use it.\u201d<\/p>\n Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS foundation trust said it has used the system but it has \u201cnot offered significant improvements on local systems\u201d. Avon and Wiltshire mental health partnership NHS trust said it had yet to find an FDP tool that offered significantly more than its existing capabilities and University hospitals Birmingham NHS foundation trust, which cares for more than 2 million people, said it had no plans to use it, citing \u201climited expected benefit over existing solutions\u201d. The FOIs were gathered by Medact, a health campaign that opposes Palantir\u2019s role in the NHS, and posted to a public transparency website, WhatDoTheyKnow.<\/p>\n Palantir has previously challenged claims that other software could be just as effective, with its senior vice-president, the former Labour MP Tom Watson, saying last week<\/a>: \u201cIf there are companies that can do it, they would have taken part in free and open competition\u201d to run the FDP.<\/p>\n Watson, a Labour peer and former minister alongside Burnham, was appointed as Palantir\u2019s chief lobbyist last month amid a wave of opposition to the Palantir deal. He warned his former colleagues in Labour not to let \u201cmob rule \u2026 lead procurement practices\u201d.<\/p>\n But two parliamentary select committees have urged<\/a> the government to end Palantir\u2019s contract, including the Commons\u2019 science and technology committee. Martin Wrigley, a Liberal Democrat member of the committee, said the NHS boards\u2019 responses \u201cjustify what I have been saying for the last year, which is that Palantir\u2019s system is just not that good\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cOnce again we have proven that centrally dictating a solution to the NHS can\u2019t work,\u201d he said. \u201cWe have to get back to developing interoperability so each trust has its own software but with a set of standards for how they interact. Palantir are great sales people but they over-promise and under-deliver.\u201d<\/p>\n Dr Rhiannon Mihranian Osborne, a spokesperson for Medact, said the FOIs showed alternatives existed, a safe transition away from Palantir was possible and \u201cthe government has no excuse to extend the contract\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cInstead of outsourcing key NHS functions to big tech companies, the government must back NHS innovation and the highly skilled NHS data professionals who work alongside doctors and nurses to deliver care in the public interest,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n A protest against Palantir\u2019s role in the National Health Service at St Thomas\u2019 hospital in London. Photograph: Toby Shepheard\/Reuters<\/p>\n Palantir accused Medact of \u201cslanted analysis\u201d and of \u201cmisleading the public\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cThe FDP is, objectively, a successful programme,\u201d a spokesperson said, adding that its purpose was to provide trusts with tools to draw on depending on their existing capabilities and needs. \u201cIt is one of just 20% of major government programmes with a green delivery rating, with ministers stating<\/a> that it \u2018is significantly exceeding its benefits forecast and has exceeded every target\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n It said NHS trusts, including Chelsea and Westminster, Leicester, Northampton, Bath, North Cumbria, Croydon, Great Western, Dorset, Chesterfield, Ashford and St Peters and Norfolk have publicly praised the FDP.<\/p>\n Palantir also points to NHS data that shows trusts using the FDP have carried out 117,000 additional operations and a 14.3% reduction in discharge delays for long-stay patients. NHS England<\/a> has, however, had to add a caveat to its statistics, making clear it cannot draw conclusions about cause and effect as other variables have not been controlled for.<\/p>\n