NHS England has granted Palantir contractors expanded access to patient information.

      An internal briefing note that was leaked outlines a new administrative position on the £330m Federated Data Platform, allowing external personnel to circumvent the usual case-by-case data approvals. Patient advocacy groups and Labour MPs have labeled this development as risky.

      According to a report from the Guardian on Sunday, NHS England has chosen to enable external staff from contractors, including Palantir, to access identifiable patient data via a new administrative role on its primary data platform.

      This adjustment pertains to the National Data Integration Tenant, which NHS England characterizes as a "haven" for identifiable patient data before this information is pseudonymised and transferred to other systems linked to the Federated Data Platform (FDP).

      Previously, individuals working on the platform were required to seek approval for access to specific datasets through a process known as a Controlled Data Access (CDA) request.

      The briefing note reviewed by the Guardian indicates that NHS England is establishing a new "admin" role that provides broader permissions to authorized external staff with a single approval, based on the premise that the previous individual CDA applications had become "too inconvenient."

      Palantir Technologies secured the £330m FDP contract in 2023 and is the primary external contractor for the platform. NHS England confirmed that any external personnel needing access under the new system must possess government security clearance and receive approval from an NHS England director or a higher-ranking official. The list of contractors potentially gaining access also includes consulting firms aiding the program.

      The Federated Data Platform aims to consolidate operational data from NHS trusts into one environment for better planning, waiting-list control, and resource distribution.

      The identifiable patient data is intended to remain within the National Data Integration Tenant, with only pseudonymised or aggregated information sent to downstream FDP modules. The new admin role is relevant for staff operating within the tenant itself.

      Patient advocacy groups and various Labour MPs have condemned this adjustment. Labour MP Rachael Maskell told the Guardian the change was "dangerous" and called on ministers to step in and halt the wider FDP initiative. The patient-data-rights group medConfidential stated that the new role signifies a significant shift in the way identifiable data is overseen within NHS England’s largest data program.

      NHS England claimed that the change received internal approval from its information-governance team and that all access continues to be regulated by existing legal and clinical-safety guidelines.

      Palantir declined to comment on the details of the access arrangement but has previously stated it processes NHS data solely according to NHS England's instructions, asserting it does not own or commercialise the underlying data.

      This development rekindles a long-standing political debate regarding the FDP contract. Critics have expressed concerns from the onset of the procurement process that providing a single US-based defense and intelligence contractor with central access to NHS data creates a concentration risk and erodes public trust.

      NHS England and the Department of Health have defended the contract, arguing it enhances operational efficiency and mitigates clinical-safety risks by unifying fragmented data systems.

      Health Secretary Wes Streeting has not issued a public statement regarding this recent revelation. The government's broader stance maintains that the FDP is crucial for NHS modernization and that data-access processes are governed by stringent controls.

      The briefing note illustrates the trade-off represented by the new admin role: quicker operational onboarding for external staff compared to stricter oversight on the specific datasets they can access.

      The Information Commissioner’s Office has yet to formally address whether this new role necessitates any additional regulatory scrutiny. The Guardian's article did not specify when this role is set to be implemented; NHS England did not provide a date when requested.