NHS England has admitted its Palantir booster claims are not causally robust, which is awkward for a £330mn contract.
NHS England’s £330mn (€383mn) deal with Palantir has become politically toxic, with Labour MPs wanting a British supplier instead.
According to the Financial Times the US outfit is not helped by Palantir chief executive Alex Karp being rather fond of Donald Trump and waiting for the anti-Christ to arrive and destroy the world.
NHS England has defended Palantir by claiming its federated data platform helped deliver 110,000 extra operations. It has claimed the same system helped cut discharge delays by 15 per cent, figures widely waved about as proof the software works.
However, a recently updated NHS England methodology page said it could not “draw conclusions about cause and effect as other variables have not been controlled for”. That statement appears seven times in the methodology document and appears to have been snuck in.
It was missing from an archived version of the site from May and does not appear on the main uptake and benefits page.
MPs are now calling for an audit while ministers consider ending Palantir’s contract next year.
House of Commons health and social care select committee Labour MP Ben Coleman said: “We should have an independent audit. For now, I hope the NHS will think twice before making these claims, and will discourage its supplier Palantir from repeating them.”
Commons technology committee Liberal Democrat member Martin Wrigley said he had “deep concerns” about the “latest caveat” from NHS England.
“From my investigations, it looks like the UK sovereign solution [using their own data systems] in places like Greater Manchester are producing better results with faster systems and happier medics. The NHS will need to work hard to justify any continued use of Palantir, if they can,” Wrigley said.
This month, an FT analysis showed many performance gains credited to Palantir came from only a handful of hospitals.
Some trusts were carrying out fewer operations after adopting the software, which is not quite the victory lap Palantir may have fancied. Several claimed benefits of FDP tools are based “on performance in the 12 months prior to adoption and the rolling 12 months following implementation”, NHS England said.
Critics said the analysis fails to account for improvements that might have happened without the FDP.
Tech campaign group Foxglove has written to UK health secretary James Murray asking when the new disclaimer was added. Foxglove wants to know why the clarification has not been made to parliament or included in other public ministerial statements.
