GP data went onto Palantir's NHS platform. Will doctors object as in 2014 and 2021?
The Financial Times reported on 13 September that NHS England added GP patient records to Palantir's data platform with no public announcement.
What happened
The Financial Times reported on that GP data has been added to the NHS Federated Data Platform run by Palantir without a public announcement, after NHS England’s 2023 line that GP data would not be part of the national platform.
GP data has been added to the NHS platform run by Palantir. The Financial Times reported this on Sunday . There was no public announcement. The Federated Data Platform links hospital data and data from the NHS bodies that buy care across England. The FT story is behind a paywall, and no other outlet on our source list had carried it by Sunday evening.
NHS England’s own documents show the change. In it said GP data would not be part of the national platform. Its questions page, last updated on , now says some data may come from GP records. It also says hospital trusts and integrated care boards may put GP data they lawfully hold into their own part of the platform.
The platform was already under pressure. In May the FT revealed that Palantir engineers could see patient data that identified people. NHS England later admitted that its data protection assessment had described supplier access wrongly. It apologised and said it was correcting the privacy notice and reviewing who can see what.
Two parliamentary committees called in June and July for the government to use its right to leave the contract in . On the health innovation minister James Frith told the Health Committee chair Layla Moran that mistrust of Palantir might make people less willing to share data. Between mid-May and mid-July, 60,000 more patients had opted out of national data sharing.
GP records have the most troubled history of any NHS data. The care.data scheme of 2014 and the GP data collection of 2021 were both paused within weeks of becoming public, after the BMA and the Royal College of GPs objected. In February the BMA told doctors to look at refusing uses of the platform that are not about direct patient care.
The Commons sits on 14 and . It then breaks for the party conferences until , so MPs have little time to raise the issue in the chamber.
Sources: FT, NHS England (2, 3), Guardian (2, 3, 4), BBC (2), UK Parliament recess dates
The Pattern
Both earlier cases about GP records drew a fast challenge. We looked for times since 2014 when an NHS body in England widened the patient data stored on, or open to, a central or contractor-run platform, and the public found out from the press or a low-key document instead of an announcement. We found six. For each we asked whether the ICO (the data watchdog), the BMA (the doctors’ body) or the Commons Health and Social Care Committee opened an inquiry or made a written challenge within 30 days.
Show the other 4 cases
The Read
History points to the doctors speaking up before the regulator. In both earlier GP record cases the BMA and the Royal College of GPs objected within the month, and NHS England paused the scheme. care.data was delayed by six months on . The 2021 collection was pushed back on and then shelved in July. The four cases about hospital data or contractors drew lawsuits, a National Data Guardian statement and a Commons debate, but nothing from the ICO, the BMA or the Health Committee within 30 days. That is why the BMA question opens at 62 and the ICO question at 20. The regulator did not move fast in any of the six, while the doctors’ body moved fast every time GP records were at stake.
There are reasons for doubt. On NHS England’s account this change is local and lawful. Its questions page says GP data goes in only where a practice has a sharing agreement with its trust or board, which repeats the 2023 position. The BMA already gave its advice in February, so it may see nothing new to say. The ICO did open an investigation into a hospital data transfer in the DeepMind case of 2016, but no source on our list dates it within a month, so it is not counted. The BMA question also fails if the story stays inside the FT and the committee campaign on the break clause takes up the response. The ICO may leave the matter to NHS England’s own governance groups, and the recess may swallow the Commons window.
Three bodies can act before . The ICO can open an investigation, and NHS England says it is already working with the ICO on how the platform is run. The BMA can advise practices to keep GP data out of local parts of the platform. MPs can ask an urgent question on 14 or or after the House returns on , and the Health Committee chair is already writing to the minister. Behind all this is NHS England’s push to deliver. Its plan told every acute, community and mental health provider to be on the platform from , and the government is deciding whether to use the break clause. Palantir’s role has grown at each step since the 2020 Covid datastore, and its UK head told MPs in April that the company has no interest in patient data.
Sources: BBC (2, 3), GOV.UK (2), Guardian (2, 3, 4), NHS England (2, 3), BBC, UK Parliament recess dates
Disclaimer
Hunch works only from sources that are publicly available, and publishes on the basis of analysis of that material. We do not form an editorial opinion or take sides, we give a simpler and wider view of news that already exists. If information in a source we used was inaccurate, distorted, or later disputed but had already entered our analysis, Hunch accepts no liability for that. Predictions are not advice. Phase 1 markets use Hunch Points, not money.
Published by Hunch under the Editorial Code. Complaints and corrections: /contact/.