NHS trusts reject Palantir data platform despite £330m deal

Sixteen NHS trusts and health boards said they do not use Palantir’s £330 million NHS data platform, according to freedom of information responses reported by The Guardian on Oct. 17.

The evidence grade is Claim (no study cited): the material is based on FOI responses and stakeholder statements, not a controlled evaluation. The dispute matters because the seven-year federated data platform deal faces a break-clause decision.

The federated data platform, or FDP, is intended to link NHS data more effectively across the health system to improve clinical accuracy and operational efficiency. Some health bodies told The Guardian the system had helped with waiting-list management and surgery scheduling.

Others said they had decided against using it, had tested it and returned to previous systems, or saw little advantage over tools already in place. A Suffolk trust said other systems “supercede” the FDP’s functionality, while Greater Manchester’s care board described the Palantir system as “duplicative” and “retrograde”.

The Guardian said more than two dozen FOI responses had been gathered by Medact, a health campaign group that opposes Palantir’s NHS role, and posted on WhatDoTheyKnow, a public transparency website. Among the 16 organisations saying they do not use the FDP, Humber Teaching NHS foundation trust said: “We have no plans to use it.”

University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS trust said it would not use the platform mainly because “it does not appear to provide functionality over and above what we have already”. Dorset HealthCare university trust said it “will not be adopting or going live with the FDP”.

Other responses were more qualified. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS foundation trust said it had used the system but that it had “not offered significant improvements on local systems”. University Hospitals Birmingham NHS foundation trust, which cares for more than 2 million people, cited “limited expected benefit over existing solutions” and said it had no plans to use it.

Palantir rejected Medact’s interpretation, accusing the group of “slanted analysis” and “misleading the public”. A company spokesperson said: “The FDP is, objectively, a successful programme,” adding that trusts could choose tools based on their existing systems and local needs.

The company also pointed to NHS data showing trusts using the FDP had delivered 117,000 additional operations and a 14.3% reduction in discharge delays for long-stay patients. NHS England has added a caveat to those statistics, saying cause and effect cannot be concluded because other variables were not controlled for.

NHS England defended the programme. A spokesperson said: “137 NHS trusts have now reported benefits from the wide range of tools available on the platform – helping staff join-up and improve care for patients, and work more efficiently.”

The contract has drawn political and public scrutiny beyond performance claims. Two parliamentary select committees have urged the government to end Palantir’s contract, including the Commons science and technology committee, according to The Guardian.

Martin Wrigley, a Liberal Democrat member of that committee, said the FOI responses supported his view that “Palantir’s system is just not that good”. Medact spokesperson Rhiannon Mihranian Osborne said the responses showed alternatives existed and that “the government has no excuse to extend the contract”.

The study cannot show whether Palantir’s platform improves clinical outcomes or operational performance compared with local alternatives.

Public trust remains part of the policy decision. Nicola Byrne, the government’s national data guardian for health and social care, urged ministers this week to give substantial weight to trust, and more than 44,000 people have filed legal objections to their health data being shared with, stored in or used by the FDP.

Source: FOI-based report, The Guardian Health, Oct. 17, 2026.

Atlas360 reports health research and does not provide medical advice.