The government’s £330m deal with US tech firm Palantir to power the NHS’s data infrastructure is under severe pressure as new figures reveal tens of thousands of patients have withdrawn their medical information from research programmes. Health innovation minister James Frith has admitted he is “worried” about growing public mistrust of the company, warning that declining data sharing could undermine the government’s 10-year health plan.
The controversy centres on Palantir’s federated data platform, designed to help NHS trusts coordinate patient care and reduce waiting times. But critics point to the Colorado-based firm’s work with Israel’s military and Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agency, fuelling concerns about who else might access sensitive British health records.
Patient Data Exodus Gathers Pace
Official figures show that 60,000 more people opted out of having their medical data used for research and planning purposes between mid-May and mid-July. The national data opt-out mechanism allows patients to prevent their information from being shared beyond direct clinical care, such as ongoing treatment or hospital operations.
Frith acknowledged the rise in a letter to Layla Moran, chair of the Commons health committee, describing it as “modest” but warning it would be closely monitored. The Liberal Democrat MP responded by urging ministers to act decisively. “Given how long this process could take, ministers need to act quickly and not put this decision off until February,” she said.
Foxglove, a campaign group focused on technology and public services, welcomed Frith’s acknowledgment of public concern. “Doctors and patients have been warning about the threat this poses to NHS care,” said Tom Hegarty, the group’s head of communications. “People are right to be concerned given Palantir’s founder, Trump ally Peter Thiel, going on record to opine that the NHS makes people sick.”
Palantir’s NHS Ambitions Under Scrutiny
Despite the mounting backlash, Palantir’s defenders point to measurable improvements in NHS performance since the platform’s rollout. The company claims its AI-driven technology has helped deliver 110,000 additional operations, reduced discharge delays for long-stay patients by 15%, and improved the proportion of people receiving cancer diagnosis confirmation within 28 days by 6.8%.
NHS England has corroborated some of these figures but declined to confirm direct causation. The UK Statistics Authority is currently investigating the data methodology behind the claims.
Palantir’s involvement has also attracted attention for its fiscal footprint. The company paid just £2m in UK corporation tax during 2024, despite securing lucrative public sector contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds. This disparity has fuelled accusations that taxpayers are funding a firm with minimal domestic tax contribution.
Policy Shift on Mandatory Adoption
Perhaps most significantly, Frith indicated a potential softening in the government’s stance on whether NHS trusts must use Palantir’s technology. In July, a health minister told Parliament that trusts would be instructed to use components of NHS England’s federated data platform, which relies on Palantir’s systems. Frith has now stated “there is no requirement to use the FDP” and trusts may “prefer an alternative”.
Moran described this as a “softened stance” but maintained her view that the government should switch provider entirely rather than extend the current seven-year contract. “We remain of the view that the government should switch provider,” she said, calling for immediate action rather than delay until February.
The controversy has also spread beyond health services. London’s mayor Sadiq Khan blocked the Metropolitan Police from awarding Palantir a £50m contract to support criminal investigations, citing concerns about the company’s values. Palantir is currently pursuing legal action against Khan’s decision, arguing it should be entitled to public contracts.
Why it Matters
This debate cuts to the heart of how Britain balances technological innovation with public trust in its most sensitive institutions. The NHS holds some of the most intimate information about millions of people—medical histories, mental health records, genetic data—and patients must feel confident that this information serves their care, not geopolitical interests or private profit. The 60,000 opt-outs in just two months represent a wake-up call that cannot be dismissed as noise. If the government fails to address legitimate concerns about Palantir’s governance and value for money, it risks not only a backlash over this specific contract but a broader erosion of public confidence in data-driven healthcare. The consequences would extend far beyond the current controversy, potentially stifling research into life-saving treatments and undermining the digital transformation the NHS desperately needs.
