Health minister warns Palantir mistrust may hinder NHS research

Concerns have emerged regarding the impact of public mistrust towards Palantir on the National Health Service’s ability to utilise patient data for research. James Frith, the health innovation minister, has expressed worry that the US defence and health technology firm’s association with the NHS may be discouraging patients from sharing their medical information. This sentiment follows new figures indicating a significant rise in the number of individuals withdrawing their data from research projects, a trend that could undermine broader health planning initiatives.

The government is currently deliberating whether to terminate Palantir’s £330 million contract, which involves operating the health service’s federated data platform. This platform is designed to enhance efficiency and improve patient outcomes through the use of artificial intelligence. Frith’s comments were made in a letter to Layla Moran, the chair of the Commons health committee, and come in the wake of a documented increase in patients opting out of data sharing mechanisms. Between mid-May and mid-July, an additional 60,000 people exercised their right to withdraw their private information under the national data opt-out scheme.

Critics, including doctors’ and patients’ groups, have urged the Labour government to invoke a break clause in Palantir’s seven-year agreement. Their objections cite the company’s previous work with the Israeli military and Donald Trump’s ICE immigration agency, alongside questions regarding the value for money provided by its services. In response, Palantir and its supporters maintain that its technology has successfully reduced NHS waiting lists for surgery. A company spokesperson stated that trusts using the platform have recorded 110,000 additional operations, a 15 percent reduction in discharge delays for long-stay patients, and a 6.8 percent improvement in the number of people receiving cancer diagnoses within 28 days.

However, NHS England has reported similar figures while noting that it cannot draw definitive conclusions about cause and effect. The government’s statistics watchdog is currently investigating the data to verify these claims. Frith acknowledged to Moran that the increase in data opt-outs coincided with heightened media interest in Palantir’s role. He described the rise as modest but stated that it would continue to be monitored. It is noted that opting out does not prevent an individual’s records from being used for direct care, such as live operations, but it does restrict their use for research and planning purposes.

The controversy surrounding Palantir’s government contracts has intensified following revelations that company staff had access to identifiable patient data, prompting ministerial apologies. Additionally, London mayor Sadiq Khan has blocked the Metropolitan police from awarding Palantir a £50 million contract to use its AI for supporting investigations, arguing that public funds should only be allocated to companies that share the city’s values. Palantir is currently suing over the mayor’s decision.

Frith warned that it may not be possible to realise the benefits of the 10-year health plan if patients continue to stop sharing their data. Foxglove, a tech equity campaign, welcomed the minister’s acknowledgment of public mistrust. Tom Hegarty, its head of communications, stated that doctors and patients had been warning about the threat to NHS care, and that tens of thousands of people had opted out in recent months. Hegarty also referenced the company’s founder, Peter Thiel, who has publicly criticised the NHS.

In a notable policy shift, Frith indicated that there is no longer a requirement for NHS trusts to use the federated data platform, suggesting they may prefer alternative solutions. This contrasts with a previous statement in July by a health minister, who told parliament that trusts would be told they must use parts of the platform. Moran welcomed this softened stance but maintained that the government should switch providers and not extend the current contract. She urged ministers to act decisively and quickly, rather than delaying the decision until February. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care disputed this, stating there had been no change in position and that the platform has never been mandatory, with organisations always able to choose alternative solutions that meet local needs.