UK government refuses public review before launch of NHS data platform
- Reference: 1658305815
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/07/20/nhs_data_platform_consultation/
- Source link:
Minister of State for Care and Mental Health Gillian Keegan [1]told Parliament that NHS England, a non-departmental body which runs the NHS, is not proposing to conduct an open debate on the nature or remit of the forthcoming Federated Data Platform.
For England's NHS, the Federated Data Platform is a top-down approach to the procurement of a £360 million system said to favor incumbent supplier Palantir, which saw its initial COVID-19 Data Store role expanded to help with the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine under a £23 million ($27 million) contract let without competition.
[2]
The [3]government had promised not to expand Palantir's role without public consultation under threat of a judicial review from news website openDemocracy, backed by tech campaign group Foxglove.
[4]
[5]
It has since published [6]a prior information notice (PIN) designed to "engage suppliers" in the procurement, in which it said the contract might be worth £240 million ($288 million) — a value set to rise to £360 million if the length of the contract is extended. The PIN said a contract notice, which kicks off the competition, would be available by June 6, but it has yet to be published.
For Palantir, the contract was said to be a "must-win deal" following its recruitment of Indra Joshi and Harjeet Dhaliwal, key figures in NHS England's data science and AI teams.
[7]
Labour MP Clive Lewis submitted a written question to Parliament this week asking whether NHS England plans to run a public dialogue about the Federated Data Platform before the invitation to tender is published.
[8]Health trusts swapped patient data for shares in an AI firm. They may have lost millions
[9]UK govt promises to sink billions into electronic health records for England
[10]US lawsuit alleges tool used by hospitals shares patient data with Meta
[11]Concerns that £360m data platform for NHS England is being set up to fail
Keegan, a former veep with Amadeus IT Group, said: "NHS England has no plans to do so."
Instead, she said the June 2022 policy paper [12]"Data saves lives: reshaping health and social care with data " committed to improve trust in the healthcare system's use of data.
"This includes engagement with the public and stakeholders on data programmes and projects, such as research and development, General Practice Data for Planning and Research and the Federated Data Platform.
"We plan to engage through methods including surveys, large-scale public engagement and focus groups, which will inform a public campaign in early 2023 on how the National Health Service uses data to improve the lives of patients. A specific theme of the engagement programme will focus on Secure Data Environments, including the Federated Data Platform."
[13]
The Federated Data Platform contract is scheduled to be awarded in November 2022, such that the supplier will be in place and its remit defined well before such information campaigns start. It is set to underpin the government's planned NHS transformation and aid the recovery of elective surgery from the backlog caused by COVID-19's strain on the service.
Foxglove director Cori Crider said: "If this is really as advertised – a massive new 'operating system for the entire NHS' – then the government should consult the public and give people a chance to consent. The government can't upend how it collects, uses and protects our NHS data if it skips those steps. Palantir is part of the problem here – but really, it's the tip of the iceberg."
Other campaigners highlighted the damage to patient trust in the use of their data by going ahead without consultation.
General Secretary of the National Pensioners Convention Jan Shortt said: "Patients have the right to know what is happening to their data well before any mechanism is set up to collect it. Public consultation is a big opportunity to improve the system and ensure our members' data will be safe long before the work of collection starts. To leave this vital strategy until 2023 instead is very concerning.
"Everyone agrees that health data needs to be used better for research, improving services and commissioning others but patients must have the right to decide what data can be taken from their records. Breaches of security have taken place in the past and we are not convinced that the Federated Data Platform will be any safer." ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-07-06/31887/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YtfSQkYXJMsgr-p95yiXzAAAAMc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/30/ukgov_caves_over_nhs_palantir_lawsuit/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YtfSQkYXJMsgr-p95yiXzAAAAMc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YtfSQkYXJMsgr-p95yiXzAAAAMc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/008755-2022
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YtfSQkYXJMsgr-p95yiXzAAAAMc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/06/sensyne_nhs_deals/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/30/uk_electronic_health_records/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/20/us_lawsuit_alleges_meta_tool/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/13/nhs_england_palantir/
[12] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/data-saves-lives-reshaping-health-and-social-care-with-data/data-saves-lives-reshaping-health-and-social-care-with-data
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YtfSQkYXJMsgr-p95yiXzAAAAMc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Consultation without consulting
So their plan is to tell people about these schemes, but not actually ask them for their views.
That's marketing and PR, not consultation.
>that spy-tech business Palantir is tipped to win.
Which is completely fucking absurd given:
- Palantir's role as incumbent was based on a no-compete direct award resulting from their providing free consultancy time supporting COVID response
- Palantir otherwise have zero track record of UK central government delivery
- Palantir's track record in the UK private sector is similarly nonexistant
- Palantir's track record in the global private sector is - at best - patchy
This is a contract for a data platform nobody in the NHS is asking for being awarded to a company that has no right bidding for it spending money the NHS doesn't have.
The contracts process so far has been a joke. NHS England do not have the competency to run this kind of tech procurement. The public contracts notice for this mega-contract runs to 289 words total. All other information has been delivered under NDA via confidential "supplier briefings" consisting of 45-minute powerpoint sessions, laden with Palantir-specific language like "purpose-based access control" and marketechture diagrams that have been all-but lifted from Palantir white papers. The format of and process for the procurement runs completely contrary to central government policy in every respect. It makes no allowance for SME involvement - normally mandatory. It has no preference for the use of open source technology or open standards for interoperability - normally mandatory. It makes no attempt to divide the nine figure sum into smaller deliverables - normally mandatory.
This should be an immense scandal, because unless the process is challenged it's going to result in us shoveling the best part of a billion quid (remember this is just for 5 of hundreds of use cases) to a thoroughly evil company, outsourcing the entirety of the NHS's data assets to their staff in the process, with zero oversight and almost certainly delivering zero business value to the doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals overstretched on the business end of things.
Whoever ends up as health secretary in three months time would do well to can this entirely.
UK plc
You are the product.
FUCKING TORY WANKERS
FUCK THE TORIES, FUCK OFF BORIS and FUCK OFF you turds that vote for them.
Your all nothing but money grabbing treasonous bastards
Absolutely stinks to high heaven
This is the most bare-faced example of corruption this country has ever seen :(
Everyone agrees that...
I'm not sure they do. Or should.
We have masses of heath data already that indicate (for example) that there needs to be a better policy response to obesity which could have a major impact not only on people's lives but on the burgeoning cost of healthcare. However, the government refuses to produce a policy response because "nanny state". Yet there's nothing more "nanny state" than taking people's health records without their consent "for their own good". If we refuse to use the data we already have, why waste resources on collecting more?
It appears that the motivation for this is not healthcare per se, but the opportunity of creating profitable treatment industries. The problem with them is that they depend on people remaining sufficiently sick that you can bleed them dry financially: there's no profit in a simple cure. And that's before we get on to the questionable links some of the potential financial beneficiaries may have.
Trust is non-existent
Any trust has been eroded:
- by the government generally through partygate, Brexit, cost of living crisis, contract awards during Covid, ...
- planned data grab of what is VERY personal data
- planned 'after the fact' engagement
- procurement process and favoured bidder
Stop, re-think and engage with the public now!
If something does not stand up to scrutiny it is not good enough.