World news and discussion on TalkFuse.
NHS wants a second opinion on Palantir’s glowing self-assessments
NHS England chief executive Sir Jim Mackey plans to tell Palantir to have future claims about the benefits of its Federated Data Platform (FDP) reviewed by NHS England. The move follows scrutiny of claims that the platform has improved hospital performance, while Mackey acknowledged that enforcing such approval may be difficult under the contract.
The £330 million contract was awarded in November 2023, and NHS England said 137 of the 139 trusts using the platform reported benefits as of June. It also attributed 111,589 additional procedures to an FDP-based tool, but a Freedom of Information response found nearly a third of user trusts were carrying out fewer procedures than before its launch. A regulator has called for clearer communication and noted that other factors have not been controlled for; an independent evaluation is under way, with findings expected after ministers decide whether to extend the contract beyond March 2027.
In short
- NHS England wants to review Palantir’s future FDP benefit claims.
- Evidence has not established that the platform caused reported improvements.
- An independent evaluation is under way.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
NHS England has a sound case for reviewing Palantir’s claims before they shape public understanding or decisions about the contract. The platform is a major public investment, and reported gains should be assessed against comparable data and other factors that affect hospital performance; the gap between trusts reporting benefits and some carrying out fewer procedures makes independent scrutiny particularly useful. Clearer, independently checked evidence could help the NHS judge whether the platform is delivering value and whether to extend the contract.
The case against
Palantir and supporters of the platform could argue that NHS England’s proposed review risks adding a difficult approval process to a contract whose terms may not give it clear power to control a supplier’s claims. The reported benefits across 137 trusts and the procedures attributed to an FDP-based tool offer reasons to take the platform’s contribution seriously, even though they do not by themselves prove causation. A fair assessment should allow the benefits to be communicated while the independent evaluation accounts for other influences on hospital activity.