Health Minister warns NHS research may suffer due to mistrust of Palantir

Palantir’s involvement with the NHS is facing increased scrutiny as new statistics reveal a significant number of patients are opting out of data sharing for research initiatives. The health innovation minister, James Frith, expressed concerns about a growing “mistrust” towards the US-based defense and healthcare technology firm, which could adversely affect patients’ willingness to contribute their data to the NHS.

The UK government is currently deliberating whether to terminate Palantir’s £330 million contract, which focuses on managing a federated data platform aimed at enhancing healthcare efficiency and improving patient outcomes. Frith’s remarks, in a letter to Layla Moran, chair of the Commons health committee, highlight a trend where approximately 60,000 more people withdrew their medical data from sharing within just two months, utilizing a mechanism known as the national data opt-out.

Medical professionals and patient advocacy groups are urging the Labour Party to activate a break clause in Palantir’s lengthy contract. Their apprehensions stem from the company’s ties to the Israeli military and its past dealings with Donald Trump’s ICE immigration agency, which has raised questions about the company’s cost-effectiveness.

Supporters of Palantir assert that the company’s AI-driven technologies have contributed to decreasing NHS waiting times for surgeries. A spokesperson for Palantir noted enhancements in surgical operations, including 110,000 additional procedures and a 15% reduction in delays for long-stay patients. They also reported a 6.8% improvement in patients receiving a cancer diagnosis within 28 days.

While NHS England corroborates these figures, it has cautioned that direct relationships between these outcomes and the technology cannot be conclusively established, with the Office for Statistics Regulation investigating the claims.

Frith acknowledged that the rise in data opt-outs coincided with increased media attention on Palantir’s role within the NHS.

Controversy surrounding Palantir’s government contracts has persisted; notably, ministers apologized after revelations surfaced that the company’s employees accessed identifiable patient records. London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, blocked a £50 million contract for the Metropolitan Police to employ Palantir’s AI services, asserting that public funds should go only to firms aligning with the city’s values. Palantir has initiated legal proceedings against the mayor’s decision.

Frith characterized the uptick in opt-outs as “modest” but acknowledged it would be monitored closely. Notably, opting out does not restrict the use of individual records for direct medical care, but does prevent their use in research and planning.

Frith warned that failing to secure patient data sharing could jeopardize the potential benefits promised in the government’s 10-year health strategy.

Tech equity advocacy group Foxglove welcomed Frith’s recognition of public distrust towards Palantir, pointing out that numerous doctors and patients have expressed concerns over the risk to NHS care. The group highlighted statements from Palantir’s founder, Peter Thiel, suggesting the NHS fosters poor health outcomes.

Frith also hinted at a possible shift in policy regarding the mandatory use of the Palantir-operated platform by NHS trusts. In contrast to earlier communications suggesting compulsory usage, he indicated that trusts could opt for alternative solutions.

Moran considered the government’s softened stance on the federated platform’s mandatory use positive but reiterated calls for a provider switch, emphasizing the need for swift action by ministers rather than delay until February.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care clarified the NHS federated data platform has never been compulsory, allowing organizations to choose alternative options that meet local requirements.