Palantir's $330mn NHS contract is under fire as NHS England admitted its core performance figures lack causal proof. The tech giant claims its software enabled 110,000 extra operations and cut discharge delays by 15 per cent, but the health service now acknowledges these metrics were not rigorously tested. The admission emerged after an updated methodology document revealed uncontrolled variables skewed results, contradicting earlier public statements. This reversal has sparked bipartisan calls for an independent audit, with Labour MPs arguing the deal prioritises a Trump-aligned US firm over British alternatives.

The controversy deepens as NHS England faces criticism for inconsistent transparency. While the firm touts Palantir’s role in improving cancer diagnosis rates by 6.8 per cent, critics note gains concentrated in a few hospitals, with some trusts reporting worse outcomes post-implementation. A data protection error further eroded trust: Palantir staff were accused of having "unlimited access" to identifiable patient data, contradicting earlier assurances. This follows a UK health data adviser’s warning about opacity in the partnership. Palantir defended its figures, insisting benefits were compared to pre-adoption performance, but skeptics argue this ignores natural improvements in NHS efficiency.

The situation underscores systemic risks in outsourcing critical healthcare tech. With the contract up for renewal next year, politicians and watchdogs demand accountability. Foxglove Legal, a tech watchdog, pressed the health secretary for explanations on the methodology update’s delay. Meanwhile, Greater Manchester’s sovereign data system outperforms Palantir’s platform in speed and clinician satisfaction, according to Liberal Democrat MP Martin Wrigley. The crisis highlights a broader debate: Can private tech companies truly serve public health when conflicts of interest and methodological flaws undermine credibility? The NHS must now decide whether to retain a partner whose effectiveness remains unproven and whose ties to controversial figures raise ethical questions.