At least 16 NHS organisations in England are not using the Federated Data Platform (FDP) supplied by US technology company Palantir, according to an investigation that has raised fresh questions about the value of the £330 million contract.
The findings come from freedom-of-information responses obtained by the health campaign group Medact and examined in a Guardian investigation published on 17 October.
Some NHS organisations said their existing systems already provided the functions they needed, while others questioned whether adopting the national platform would offer enough additional benefit.
However, the findings do not mean that all NHS trusts have rejected the technology. Other organisations have reported improvements after adopting tools available through the platform.
Why some NHS organisations are not using the platform
The Federated Data Platform is intended to help NHS staff bring together information used to manage waiting lists, schedule operations, coordinate patient care and plan hospital services.
Palantir leads the consortium awarded the seven-year contract in November 2023.
The Guardian reported that University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust did not identify sufficient additional functionality to justify adopting the system.
Dorset HealthCare University NHS Foundation Trust said it would not go live with the platform, while Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust reported having no plans to use it.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust said the platform had not delivered significant improvements compared with its existing local systems.
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust also questioned the expected benefits of switching from systems already in place.
These responses reflect the assessments of individual NHS organisations. They do not establish that the technology has failed across the health service.
Palantir and NHS England point to benefits
Palantir has challenged the interpretation of the freedom-of-information findings.
The company disputed Medact’s conclusions and maintained that the platform was delivering benefits, while arguing that NHS organisations could choose tools suited to their operational needs.
NHS England has also reported improvements associated with the use of FDP products, including additional surgical activity and shorter discharge delays for some patients.
Figures cited in the investigation included 117,000 additional operations and a 14.3% reduction in discharge delays among long-stay patients.
However, these figures require careful interpretation. NHS England has acknowledged that other factors may have contributed to the improvements, meaning the changes cannot automatically be attributed to the platform alone.
The distinction matters when assessing whether the investment is delivering value for public money.
What the official adoption figures show
According to NHS England’s published uptake and benefits figures, 170 NHS trusts had signed up to the Federated Data Platform by the end of May 2026.
Of those, 139 were live on the system, while 137 were reporting benefits from one or more FDP products.
Signing up, going live and reporting benefits are different stages of adoption. They should not be treated as interchangeable.
The figures also relate to May 2026 and do not provide a complete picture of the platform’s use in October.
Nevertheless, they show that the technology has been adopted by a substantial number of NHS organisations, even as others question whether it offers improvements over existing systems.
Patient information and public trust
The controversy extends beyond cost and operational performance.
Campaigners have questioned whether a company involved in government, intelligence, and defence-related work should play a major role in handling technology used by the NHS.
Palantir and NHS England say contractual safeguards restrict how the supplier can access and use NHS information.
Under NHS England’s published arrangements, the health service retains control of its data; access is restricted to authorised purposes; and the supplier cannot commercialise NHS data or use it to train its own artificial-intelligence products.
These protections are important, but they have not resolved all concerns about the contract.
The Guardian investigation also reported that National Data Guardian Dr Nicola Byrne urged ministers to give substantial weight to public confidence when considering the agreement’s future.
It said more than 44,000 people submitted legal objections concerning the use of their health information on the platform.
Those objections highlight the need for clear communication about what information is used, who can access it, and what rights patients retain.
Government decision remains outstanding
The government is facing questions about whether it will exercise a break clause in Palantir’s contract.
No final decision to terminate the agreement has been established.
In a written parliamentary answer published on 12 October, health minister James Frith referred MPs to the published contract information and said the government did not generally respond to hypothetical scenarios involving existing contractual arrangements.
In an earlier answer on 21 September, he said the contract would be reviewed through standard management processes and that the outcome would be announced in due course.
The latest disclosures therefore present ministers with competing evidence.
Some NHS organisations say their local systems already meet their needs, while Palantir and NHS England point to benefits reported elsewhere.
The decision will involve more than the number of organisations using the platform. Ministers must also consider its demonstrated impact, cost, contractual obligations, data safeguards, and public confidence.
For NHS patients and staff, the central question is whether the technology improves services enough to justify the investment while maintaining trust in the handling of sensitive health information.
