The Manchester Resistance: Why Public Health Data Cannot Be a Black Box

In the high-stakes world of health tech, the allure of the 'plug-and-play' solution is powerful. For the UK's National Health Service (NHS), that allure comes in the form of a federated data platform (FDP) developed by the American software giant Palantir. The deal, worth more than $400 million, promises a streamlined future where fragmented data—once scattered across spreadsheets and whiteboards—is unified to cut hospital stays and optimize operating theaters.

But as a tech columnist, I have learned that 'efficiency' is often the Trojan horse for proprietary lock-in. This is why the stand taken by Greater Manchester, as Wired first reported, is not merely a bureaucratic holdout; it is a vital stress test for the future of public health data.

According to reporting from Wired, Greater Manchester is the only region whose integrated care board (ICB) has categorically refused to adopt Palantir’s FDP. Instead, they are doubling down on their homegrown Analytics and Data Science Platform (ADSP). While the UK government and Palantir argue that the FDP allows for a 'lift and shift' capability—where tools created in one region can be easily deployed in another—Greater Manchester is arguing that sovereignty and specificity trump standardized convenience.

Matt Hennessey, the chief data and analytics officer at NHS Greater Manchester, told Wired that adopting the FDP would be a 'retrograde step.' His reasoning hits on the core fear of any evidence-first technologist: the loss of agility. Hennessey notes that because the ADSP is a collection of technologies developed in-house, the region can swap out specific components, such as data visualization software, if they are no longer best-in-class. A proprietary black box from a US-based firm rarely offers that kind of modular freedom.

Furthermore, the board in Greater Manchester concluded in May 2025 that its local capabilities actually exceed what the FDP offers, claiming some functionalities are two to three years ahead of the national system. They also possess primary care data that is unavailable on Palantir's platform.

Beyond the technical specs, there is the issue of trust. Palantir's involvement in US immigration crackdowns and theaters of war has turned the NHS contract into a flashpoint, sparking parliamentary inquiries and worker rebellions, as reported by Wired. Hennessey correctly points out that even a technically proficient platform fails if clinicians and patients do not trust it. By fostering public trust over nearly a decade with a local system, Greater Manchester is proving that data utility is inextricably linked to community confidence.

We are currently at a crossroads. The UK government has until next February to decide whether to terminate the Palantir contract early or let it run until 2031. While Tom Bartlett, a former deputy director of data engineering at NHS England, argues that the FDP provides a necessary surface for artificial intelligence to operate, we must ask: at what cost?

If one region can successfully manage the health data of 3 million people using a transparent, home-spun system, the argument for a mandatory, proprietary national monopoly collapses. Greater Manchester is providing the only real-world control group in this experiment. If they succeed, they will have proven that public health data can be managed without surrendering the keys to a foreign corporation.