Twenty-nine hospital organizations in England stated that the data platform provided by Palantir was not operational or that they were not using its applications, despite being listed among the institutions that, according to NHS England, were already obtaining benefits from the system. The discrepancy was revealed by The Guardian this Monday (2), based on more than 100 freedom-of-information requests submitted by the medical organization Medact.
The investigation calls into question the results released by the British public health service regarding the Federated Data Platform (FDP), contracted for £330 million from a consortium led by Palantir. The system was developed to connect information stored in different hospital databases and to help with activities such as scheduling surgeries, managing beds and planning care.
Among the institutions consulted, Nottingham University Hospitals said it had not yet established an implementation timeline. Mersey Care stated that the platform had not gone into operation, while University Hospitals of North Midlands said it did not intend to adopt it.
The responses also expose differences between making infrastructure available and actually using its tools. Torbay and South Devon, for example, said it did not use the FDP operationally but was classified by the NHS as active because it had infrastructure for data transmission.
That distinction is important for interpreting official indicators. An organization may use administrative functions, such as sending information or calculating treatment costs, without necessarily employing the applications intended for clinical care. Therefore, a hospital's presence in deployment statistics does not, on its own, demonstrate direct benefits to patients.
In response to the Guardian, NHS England maintained that nearly 140 organizations had already reported benefits from the different tools available, including improvements in information integration and team efficiency.
Palantir also defended the platform's results, pointing to approximately 117,000 additional surgeries recorded by user institutions and reductions in hospital discharge delays. However, the NHS itself previously acknowledged that its data do not allow establishing a direct cause-and-effect relationship between FDP adoption and the observed results.
Chi Onwurah, chair of the British Parliament's Science and Technology Committee, questioned the discrepancy between the benefits presented and the use described by hospitals. The lawmaker argued that the government should exercise the contract termination option and open a new tender.
British government must decide on contract by December
The investigation comes on the eve of a decision on the project's continuation. A document published by the House of Commons Library on October 29, 2026 confirms that the government must decide by December whether to extend the contract with the consortium led by Palantir.
The agreement took effect in March 2024, with an initial term of three years and options for extension for up to seven years in total. The first opportunity for termination is scheduled for March 2027, subject to advance notice to the supplier.
In June parliamentary testimony, Ayub Bhayat, director of data at NHS England, explained that any decision not to extend the contract would need to be communicated by December 2026.
Two parliamentary committees have already recommended that the government not extend the agreement. The British executive, in turn, said it will follow the usual contract evaluation procedures before announcing its decision.
There is also an issue related to the timing of the evidence. According to the parliamentary document, an independent evaluation of the FDP, commissioned in February 2026, is due to be published only after the decision on the extension.
The move means that the government will have to decide on the continuation of the contract before the scheduled release of that independent evaluation, while questions remain about the criteria used to measure adoption and the platform's benefits.
