As a distraction technique while one of my veins was being speared at my GP's surgery recently, I thought about Palantir, the controversial US tech company giving the NHS its own painful moment of self-examination.
The Palantir-NHS Partnership
Palantir is a case troubling the NHS right now. The tech firm – named, of all things, after the all-seeing crystal balls that the baddies in JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings use to spy on the good guys – has been working with the health service since the pandemic, signing a £1 contract initially to link up patient data. There's little argument that it has done that. According to the latest NHS data, 80 trusts were said to be 'reporting benefits' at the end of February. The figures suggest that since the contract began, the system has delivered more than 110,000 extra operations and cut the number of patients waiting more than 28 days for a cancer diagnosis by 6.8 per cent.
Controversies and Criticisms
But there are valid, visceral reasons that MPs have now called for the service to junk this agreement. 'Palantir should not have such a significant role in the UK public sector… [its] increasing presence… represents an unacceptable point of weakness,' the House of Commons technology committee said in a report this week, warning of the risk of 'vendor lock-in' with an individual supplier. Pointing to comments by the company's co-founder Peter Thiel, who previously said 'the NHS makes people sick', the MPs said Palantir had increased its UK presence despite a 'clear mismatch with UK values'. For example, the company works closely with ICE, the controversial US immigration agency (although it should be stated that it fiercely denies some of the claims made about that work, a recurrent theme). It also boasts a large roster of military clients, including the US, the UK, Nato and perhaps most controversially, Israel. However, it also works with Ukraine, to the extent that boss Alex Karp told The Times he was on a 'Kremlin hit list'. Last time I looked, Ukraine was firmly in the goodies camp.
The Problem with Leadership
If we're being honest, CEO Alex Karp is part of the problem with Palantir. He has made a series of controversial and sometimes downright stupid statements. The same is true of co-founder Peter Thiel, although perhaps not to quite the same extent. They're both Trumpers, too, but so what. I personally dislike and disagree with the US president on many issues. But a substantial chunk of America thinks differently. That's democracy for you. The point is that most CEOs, whether Trumpers, libertarians, or hardcore Democrats, tend to be circumspect in their public comments because upsetting customers, or customers of customers, or staff at customers, is just bad for business.
The Need for NHS Improvement
None of this changes the fact that the job that Palantir is doing for the NHS needs doing. Badly. The service needs to work better, and to get more efficient. It needs to learn to better use, and to share, data between its constituent parts. This goes way beyond the issue of my double blood tests. As a user, a super-user given the array of health challenges I contend with, I want, I need, the service to improve. I could be in serious trouble, if it doesn't. And I'm not alone. What if Palantir can do that? What if the claims about the extra operations have been facilitated by the FDP and how much waiting lists have been cut by, are true? Then I think I can live with Palantir. Not easily or comfortably, perhaps. For example, I have a deep and intrinsic dislike of state surveillance, and by implication, of the companies involved in facilitating that. But please tell me what a boycott of Palantir, as some advocate, would achieve? Would it deter Karp or Thiel from saying stuff? Nope. Would it alter the company's behaviour? Probably not. The NHS contract is a chunky one. But Palantir reported net income of roughly twice that in the first quarter of May 2026 alone. It's certainly not going to help NHS patients. And right now, some of us need all the help we can get.
Alternatives and Scrutiny
Another thought: if not this business, please tell which of its rivals are going to do the job. After the inevitable disruption that a change in provider would bring with it, that would likely be another US tech company. Show me one of those and I'll show you a controversy. Ironically the attention Palantir gets for being Palantir could be a good thing if it encourages scrutiny of things that might otherwise fly under the radar, such as the way patient data is being used. The downside is that it is hard to find an unbiased view of just how good its work is. And that's what really matters here. Politicians and NHS bosses have a stake in saying Palantir's doing great. The opposite is true of its critics. A genuinely unbiased assessment of how good the kit is would be very helpful. The polarised politics surrounding Palantir make that hard to find.
Data Privacy Concerns
But here's what should also worry us: Louis Mosley, Palantir's UK CEO, pointed out on his active, and punchy, Twitter feed that 'no data should leave the UK for the US'. 'With Palantir software, not one bit of it will,' he added. He has also pointed out that the NHS's patient data is owned, and controlled, by the NHS. The same NHS that has previously said 'pseudonymised' data could be provided to 'public sector bodies, charities, academic institutions or commercial organisations'. So, businesses. 'But they will all have a legal basis and legitimate need to use the data, which must be used for healthcare planning and research purposes.' Phew! I feel better already. Our medical information is supposed to be private. It isn't just Palantir we have to worry about here.
