Manchester hits snooze again on joining Palantir-run NHS data platform

Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board (ICB) has again put off its adoption of an NHS data platform prescribed by the UK government and run by Palantir until there is more evidence that it will be in the "best interests" of the city's population. The national Federated Data Platform (FDP) was created by the US spy-tech firm …

[Wiretrip]

Good! The Manchester system obviously works and is being actively used. NHS England should be championing that system rather than handing the keys to our nation's health data to a potential adversary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Microsoft (Azure) is not a potential adversary? Manchester makes a great case for not accepting vendor lock in, but they don't seek to make a case for sovereignty, that's just El Reg's spin.

[Taliesinawen]

Because Microsoft (Azure) is not a potential adversary?

@Handlebars: “Because Microsoft (Azure) is not a potential adversary? Manchester makes a great case for not accepting vendor lock in, but they don't seek to make a case for sovereignty, that's just El Reg's spin. ”

So, our confidential medical records are already stored in a data silo in Virginia, USA :o

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Because Microsoft (Azure) is not a potential adversary?

More likely in either of the 2 UK Azure Data-centres in London or Cardiff… but don’t let that stop a good shitpost..

[Taliesinawen]

Re: Because Microsoft (Azure) is not a potential adversary?

> More likely in either of the 2 UK Azure Data-centres in London or Cardiff… but don’t let that stop a good shitpost..

Accessible from Virginia, USA ;)

[msknight]

Re: Because Microsoft (Azure) is not a potential adversary?

And plug-pullable from the Orangutan enclosure in Washington DC.

[Kraft]

Re: Because Microsoft (Azure) is not a potential adversary?

It doesn’t really matter much for data sovereignty. Microsoft has its HQ in the US so the US government can access the data.

[takno]

Last I checked NHS England was entering the raiding-the-stationery-cupboard stage of being shut down. This is just one more of the expensive pointless mistakes made by an organisation which should never have existed.

Much as I hate the decision, the money has been spent and it may be worth trying to wring value out of the platform. Long term it might be better to write off £350m quid in order to avoid letting another toxic supplier onto the endless renewals gravy train, but I wouldn't fancy being the one to make that call.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is just one more of the expensive pointless mistakes made by an organisation which should never have existed."

You think that Streeting and a handful of non-medical civil servants will do a better job of running an organisation that is Britain's largest employer and represents 11% of GDP? Maybe his valuable experience as president of the student's union will see him in good stead.

The previous and current governments hated NHSE because greasy bastards such as Hancock and Streeting were affronted by the fact that they didn't have the absolute control they wanted over the NHS. They didn't then (or now) know a fucking thing about public health, about acute care, about running a service, but still they wanted to eliminate 36,000* jobs from NHS management, in the belief those people sat all day and did nothing. Now we've got a health service run by a tosser who's never done a proper job, has a super-useful history degree, and is politicking to replace his own boss. I assure you the dissolution of NHSE will end really badly.

* 18k from NHSE, and 18k from ICBs.

[SundogUK]

You are entirely correct about Hancock and Streeting but NHS management is a classic case of Pournelle's Iron Law.

https://jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html

[Anonymous Coward]

The NHS would be better if (English) Senior Manglement and Ministers just stopped changing tack - and wasting money reorging - every few years and let them just run it.

[Charlie Clark]

Sounds like you're quoting from the fallacy of the sunk investment. If it's wrong, it's wrong and should be pulled.

The data sovereignty issues alone are a sufficient argument against Palantir. But there are British and European companies that could provide a similar service, at a similar price and comply with data sovereignty and privacy requirements, whatever the government "special advisers" say.

[Anonymous Coward]

Waiting for evidence?

... still waiting for evidence that it will be in the best interests of the population.

Right ...

That will happen when hell freezes over. Twice.

Or ...

When the right size brown envelope is found.

Full of evidence, obviously.

.

[Roland6]

Re: Waiting for evidence?

However, the evidence that it wasn’t in the UKs interest will be found in the near future when someone discovers an unsecured cloud bucket containing UK personally identifiable medical data, that happens to be owned by Trump Medical…

[SundogUK]

Re: Waiting for evidence?

Much more likely to turn up owned by some Democrat ally. Trump does not and has not ever had any involvement with the medical industry.

[stewwy]

Re: Waiting for evidence?

...... Or body or bodies is/are Buried, this is a company with the symbol of The Eye of Sauron on it's masthead.

All we need now is for them to be secretly Russian supporters, and we are full on in Battle for Middle earth territory.

[AnonContractor]

Re: Waiting for evidence?

Or the Pay Pal Mafia..

[BartyFartsLast]

Re: Waiting for evidence?

You just need to redefine the bounds of "population" to residents of the office the decision is made in.

[Bebu sa Ware]

seven years, two down with five to go

A five year filibuster should be child's play for the British Civil Service. :)

Manchester might end up emulating the Duke of Plaza Toro who always lagging at the rear was well placed to lead the retreat.

[Pete 2]

Straight out of the Sir Humphrey playbook

> We will work with NHS England colleagues to co-develop a roadmap that establishes the criteria for value-based adoption and identifies the point at which the FDP adoption is in the best interests of the GM population."

.

You do have to wonder why NHS England didn't simply take the Greater Manchester system and adopt it nationwide?

Maybe it was too "northern" for a London based decision making body?

[Roland6]

Re: Straight out of the Sir Humphrey playbook

It was invented by NHS personnel. As far as the Conservatives were and are concerned government employees are a waste of space, compared to US companies and their lobbying and hospitality budgets plus advisory openings for cronies.

[ChrisElvidge]

Re: Straight out of the Sir Humphrey playbook

See also NHSbuntu - https://github.com/NHSbuntu/nhsbuntu

It was invented here.

[hoola]

Re: Straight out of the Sir Humphrey playbook

No back-handers and NHS England will have written the contract that effectively made Palantir the only company that could bid.

Pen-pushers at the top bought into the snake oil that is Palantir, probably with some nice trips to "evaluate" the product.

[Will Godfrey]

If it aint broke, don't fix it!

See title.

[BebopWeBop]

Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board has again put off its adoption of an NHS data platform prescribed by the UK government and run by Palantir until there is more evidence that it will be in the "best interests" of the city's population.’.

Madness I say, madness. Downing St, Streeting and Starmer would never countenace such a thing. Their sponsors might get annoyed.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Greater Manchester ICB must have some former BOFHs working at senior level. Or, haven't been wined and dined enough. I hope it's the former

[Anonymous Coward]

Time, bribes & coercion

"Care board still waiting for evidence that it will be in the best interests of the population"

Let's see how long they hold out. I'm sure some weaselly words will emerge when they announce acceptance.

[Tron]

Re: Time, bribes & coercion

Manchester's mayor could replace Starmer, so the UK could be a bit more Mancunian in the future, rather than the other way around.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Time, bribes & coercion

Mancunians might be wondering whether he's taking his eye off the ball.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Time, bribes & coercion

Nah, we're looking forward to being able to apply the term "Council House" to somewhere new!

[Anonymous Coward]

A waiting game

Given that Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board is quite likely to outlive NHS England, I think they do right. Who knows what (or who) will replace it, and there's always that tiny (I know, TINY) chance that HMG/DH&SC will see sense and tell Palantir to do one at some point.

In the meantime we can resist to a small degree by insisting that our GP does not create a Summary Care Record (or any of its successors) for us. Don't give up your data without legislative compulsion.

[Pete Sdev]

Apropos Palantir

Interesting article the other day in what was once known as the Manchester Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/nov/18/fear-really-drives-him-is-alex-karp-of-palantir-the-worlds-scariest-ceo

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Apropos Palantir

The Manchester Guardian was founded by a local businessman after he was horrified by the use of soldiers against civilians

[martinusher]

'Never quite got this NHS reform business

I left Manchester for sunny California many decades ago and so have been subjected to the US health care 'system' since then. We all know it as somewhat dysfunctional but its actually lots of different systems and the one I belong to is an example of a "Health Maintenance Organization". HMOs differ from the normal tangle of suppliers, contractors, insurance providers and the like in that they're vertically integrated. Just like the 'old' NHS. Being vertically integrated makes it highly cost effective and it naturally uses a high degree of automation -- there's no shuffling of paperwork between providers, everything's networked.

The only snag is that HMOs are 'not for profit' organizations. That makes their model less attractive to organizations like UHC, the large US health insurer, who saw the UK as a 'growth opportunity' (and who was working with Jeremy Hunt back when he was busy 'reforming' the NHS). The UK government could have asked for advice and help from these HMOs, they have educational and outreach arms dedicated to lobbying for (among other things) universal healthcare.

The obvious question is that "if they're so great why aren't all Americans on them?". Apart from the cultural hangover -- middle class Americans in particular like the notion of 'choice' even if their choice is actually highly restricted in practice -- these organizations tend to be difficult to enroll in, they prefer long term relationships rather than people diving in because they've just realized that the treatment they need through their 'normal' providers is either non-existent or is going to cost them too much. They are very popular, though, and people who do enroll in them tend to stay put for life.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: 'Never quite got this NHS reform business

I also moved to California (having done my BSc in Manchester). The problem with HMOs is the tie to employers who select which one to offer. My institution has switched HMOs at least 4 times while I have worked here, and would have involved changing "GPs" (PCPs here) each time. Hence I opt for the alternative PPO which is more expensive but allows me to choose providers and thus stick with the same care long term.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: 'Never quite got this NHS reform business

The big problem with both systems – indeed for many healthcare systems – is matching funding to expenses. In America this is officially done through coverage and premium – if you're not insured, you're not covered, and this can happen as soon as you lose your job. Medicare and Medicaid are government programmes designed to make up the shortfall. At the end of the day, America spends far more per person than its peers for similar outcomes. But it does come with the illusion of choice.

The UK system has always had the advantage of universal coverage, but this has also meant that budget shortfalls had to be made up in service provision – fewer services, less investment, etc. It was also only ever theoretically funded at "arm's length" by the government, which added additional uncertainty to budgetting. A propos budgetting – successive governments from Thatcher to Blair – tried to introduce financial discipline into the system but really only succeeded in new bureaucracies, cronyism and finally, PPPs.

Some kind of premium system seems inevitable as, I think, does some sort of two-tier service, though this has to be done through things other than the level of care: "whiter teeth", single room, etc. It's going to happen anyway, better if we can channel it. But we also need better ways to reduce elements of the princial/agent problem: patients think they've already paid for everything; providers never pay for anything, etc. Not come across a good solution to this yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I go somewhere other than the Manchester area, how do I opt out of having my data shared with a malign foreign organisation (Palantir) ?

[Apocalypso - a cheery end to the world]

> So if I go somewhere other than the Manchester area, how do I opt out of having my data shared with a malign foreign organisation (Palantir) ?

https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/about-the-nhs/opt-out-of-sharing-your-health-records/