Health organisations are urging the British government to use an exit clause in its contract with tech firm Palantir and shift from its Federated Data Platform (FDP) in the National Health Service (NHS) in early 2027. Recent reports by Medact, Just Treatment, and other groups argue that Palantir’s system brings limited benefits at the cost of patient trust and data security—not to mention millions of pounds.
The organisations called for scaling up existing NHS-led innovations in data management, avoiding vendor lock-in, and ensuring that future projects in this area are based on need and evidence. The reports thus echoed recommendations from the Health and Social Care Committee, which also advised the government to drop the agreement next year.
Health institutions across England have been pressured—more or less explicitly—into adopting Palantir’s services despite reservations from NHS data officers, patient rights groups, and trade unions. The push was justified by promises to improve service efficiency, reduce waiting lists, and upgrade planning. While NHS England officials recently boasted about the high number of institutions that formally adopted the FDP, an analysis of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests by Medact and other organisations revealed that many use the platform only sporadically. Some trusts have signed memoranda of understanding but postponed implementation, while others utilised and boasted about select applications.
Others still have explicitly said that migrating to Palantir’s platform makes no sense, as it would result in the organisational functionalities offered by locally developed systems. For example, Greater Manchester—where new British Prime Minister Andy Burnham served as mayor until recently—has its own analytics and data science platform,which leverages local knowledge and needs.
In the reports, Medact notes that platforms like Greater Manchester’s offer greater autonomy and alignment with health priorities compared to Palantir’s centralised solution. “Any “alternative” to the FDP must be specific to what is actually needed, where and why, rooted in an understanding of what already exists in NHS-led innovation,” Medact wrote. “An “alternative” to the FDP must also be underpinned by a set of values that protect patient trust, staff buy-in, public support, local autonomy and data sovereignty.”
Public trust in the FDP has been extremely low since its announcement. Over 81,000 patients filed complaints with their local hospitals regarding the use of Palantir software, according to Medact. This unease is likely compounded by Palantir’s documented support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza, its involvement in ICE operations in the United States, and its controversial corporate rhetoric. Earlier this year, Palantir published a “manifesto” describing certain cultures as “regressive and harmful”—values diametrically opposed to those represented by the NHS.
The negative response to Palantir’s presence in the NHS could easily spill over and undermine data management projects that could in fact strengthen healthcare delivery. “Ministers mustn’t risk damaging public confidence in such a major project that should provide better healthcare for millions of people,” warned Helga Pile, head of health of public services trade union Unison. “It would be far better to make a break from Palantir at the earliest opportunity.”
NHS data workers, whose jobs have also come at risk due to outsourcing and cuts in public services, echo patients” concerns. “We believe that Palantir’s FDP is regressive in many organisational contexts; that data completeness will be compromised by the erosion of patient trust; that data privacy protections are inadequate; and that data structures are at risk of misuse,” over 100 digital, data, and tech NHS staff members warned in an open letter.
“Rather than outsourcing analytical skills to a software provider of consultancy services, the government must invest in the recruitment, development and retention of NHS data and digital professionals who carry institutional knowledge, clinical context, and professional accountability that no software can replicate,” Medact stated.
With the option to exit the Palantir agreement approaching in February 2027, health activists emphasise that the government’s priority must be acting in the public interest. In pursuing this goal, however, they caution against treating technology as a silver bullet solution, locating it instead as a part of a broader strategy to strengthen public healthcare. “Whilst good data infrastructure is important for clinical care, data procurement must avoid thinking of technology as a default or fix-all solution for complex systemic problems,” Medact concluded.
 | A guest post by
|