New evidence of disagreement among NHS organisations about the value of Palantir’s Federated Data Platform has renewed scrutiny of the health service’s major investment in technology intended to improve operational planning.
Freedom of Information responses examined by healthcare campaign organisation Medact identify 16 trusts and health bodies that are not using the platform, including organisations that have raised concerns about its benefits compared with established systems.
The findings highlight differences in local adoption rather than demonstrating that the programme has failed across England. Other NHS organisations are using the technology and have reported operational improvements associated with its applications.
The Federated Data Platform is being delivered through a contract led by Palantir Technologies, awarded in November 2023. The arrangement has a potential value of approximately £330m over seven years, subject to its contractual structure and extension provisions.
The platform is intended to bring together information from existing systems to assist with waiting list management, operating theatre schedules, hospital discharge and other operational decisions.
NHS organisations hold information in a variety of clinical and administrative applications. Connecting those records can make it easier to identify capacity constraints or coordinate activity, but implementation must accommodate different data structures, local procedures and technology already in use.
Some trusts responding to information requests reported that their existing systems were adequate or questioned whether the new platform provided sufficient additional functionality. Others have faced difficulties with deployment or have chosen not to proceed at the time of their response.
Those accounts need to be assessed alongside NHS England’s own figures. The organisation reported that 139 trusts were live on the platform at the end of May 2026, while 170 had signed memoranda of understanding to participate. The figures describe different stages of adoption, not identical levels of implementation.
NHS England has also published examples of benefits associated with the platform, including improvements in scheduling, patient flow and the use of operational information. Such findings require careful interpretation because performance is influenced by staffing, demand and other local conditions as well as software.
A change in a hospital’s reported operating performance does not necessarily establish that the platform caused the entire improvement. Equally, concerns expressed by an organisation not using the system do not demonstrate that other trusts cannot obtain value from it.
The procurement raises a broader commercial question about whether national technology platforms can deliver economies of scale without imposing unnecessary changes on organisations with established local arrangements.
Centralised purchasing can simplify contract management and potentially reduce duplication. However, local implementation requirements may still be substantial, particularly where existing software, data handling procedures and workforce practices are deeply embedded.
Information governance is another important issue. NHS England says participating trusts and integrated care boards remain responsible for their data, while the supplier operates as a processor within contractual restrictions. The arrangements do not amount to transferring ownership of patient information to Palantir.
The distinction between contractual safeguards and public confidence remains important. Healthcare information is highly sensitive, and the acceptability of technology suppliers depends on transparency, security controls and trust as well as technical functionality.
The contract includes review and extension arrangements, creating opportunities to assess delivery and expenditure before the full potential contract period is completed. Those assessments need to consider operational usage, measurable benefits, implementation costs and the availability of alternatives.
The latest FOI findings demonstrate that adoption is neither automatic nor uniform. Determining whether the national investment represents value for money will require a comprehensive comparison of results across participating and non-participating organisations, rather than relying solely on either supplier claims or individual objections.
You must be logged in to post a comment.