Changed age limit for free dental care

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the Social Affairs Committee's report number 4, Amended age limit for free dental care.

In recent years, knowledge has increased increasingly regarding the connection between oral health and overall health. Problems and diseases in the mouth can be both causes of and consequences of conditions in the rest of the body. Despite this, teeth do not have the same status within the welfare system as the rest of the body. We in Sverigedemokraterna believe this is wrong. Teeth are a part of the body.

Therefore, it is pleasing that we, together with the government, have taken the first steps to launch a comprehensive dental care reform aimed at strengthening the high-cost protection for dental care, so that it more closely resembles what exists for other healthcare. The investigation has presented its report, and the matter is being further prepared within the Government Offices.

The first stage will include persons who are 67 years of age or older. But the reform is scalable, which also makes it possible to include the rest of the population.

Mr. Speaker! From the Sweden Democrats' side, we have been clear all along that such a reform should be introduced broadly but gradually and begin with the elderly. We prioritize those with the worst oral health, so that they receive the dental care they need and deserve.

Among older people, there are several factors that can contribute to impaired oral health. Impaired motor skills can make it more difficult to brush the teeth and maintain oral hygiene. Many medications affect saliva production, and many older people experience impaired saliva secretion due to advanced age itself.

The elderly, especially those with lower pensions, can today be forced to forgo dental visits in favor of other costs. It is not worthy of a welfare country like Sweden. Therefore, we know that the reform that has already begun and which will come into force in 2026 is much longed for by Sweden's pensioners.

The Sweden Democrats and the government will abolish approximately 3.4 billion per year from 2026 for the first stage. But the question is larger than only crowns and öre. One also needs to take into account the dental care's resources and capacity. A reform of this size will increase the demand for dental care. To avoid a situation where waiting times become too long, we consider that the report we are now debating implies a reasonable reallocation of dental care's capacity.

To mitigate the effects of the proposed changes for the 20-23 age group, we are simultaneously introducing double ATB - simply a dental care subsidy of 600 kronor per year instead of 300 kronor. This can also, according to current practice, be saved for up to 24 months, which in practice means that those persons in this group who visit the dental clinic every other year can receive 1,200 kronor in subsidy at the dental visit. The proposition also means that treatments that have already been started before the entry into force shall continue to be covered by the older regulations.

For us in the Sverigedemokraterna, the teeth are a part of the body. The change we are debating here today should not be seen as something isolated, but as part of the work to increasingly equate oral health with other health. It is actually something historical, which one might think all parties in this chamber should be able to welcome.

The dental care investigation's report is now out for consultation. The Sweden Democrats will, together with the government, return with the final proposal.

Mr. Speaker! We begin with the elderly. But it is only a part of what we have started. It is a first stage.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! As the member knows, teeth are a typical class issue. One might wonder a bit what this bill does for the class differences that exist when it comes to teeth. 77.6 percent of the highly educated in the population receive a dental check-up every three years, but only 49 percent of those who only have a lower secondary education. This clearly shows that the costs of going to the dentist hit hard against people with poorer finances. Then I wonder quietly, the member, how this reform in some way contributes to more equal dental health. That is my first question.

My second question concerns the Sweden Democrats in general. In the 2022 election campaign, it was discussed how almost the entire population - not immigrants, for the record - could receive a share of better dental care through a review of the high-cost protection. Teeth should belong to the body. Now it is the 67-plussars who can receive this. Now I wonder what happened along the way. How will it ever be possible to address all the problems that exist within dental care, for example, that the regional dental care is on its knees? In what way does this bill - and the thinking behind it that you will implement later - facilitate the regional dental care?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Rågsjö for the questions.

As I stated, this is a reform that constitutes a first stage. The Sweden Democrats' starting point has consistently been that this should include the entire population. But it must happen in stages, and we begin with those people whom we believe have the worst conditions to receive the dental care they need and who forgo their dental care for economic reasons. As the member himself expresses, it is very many of the elderly who have great needs and who perhaps cannot afford to pay for dental care. Therefore, we are now introducing this.

In accordance with the investigation, a number of changes are also being made regarding the dental care subsidy. For example, we are doubling the dental care subsidy for the age group of young people where we are now removing the free dental care, that is, returning to what applied previously. This was first changed in 2017; before that, it was not free up to the age of 23 either. These individuals will, however, now receive 600 kronor a year in dental care subsidy. Moving forward, we will ensure that the rest of the population can also receive a high-cost protection. We will simply have to see what comes and what we can negotiate.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! Given the power that the Sweden Democrats have gained over the government, it should not be any problem to negotiate a proposal for the entire population. You have for heaven's sake lowered the tax for the very richest. Then there should still have been the conditions to step in and do something more for those who have it absolutely worst. But perhaps that was not on the map.

I am still asking: In what way does equality increase with this reform? I find it difficult to see. Will there be more dentists in the regional dental care because of the reform? Have you considered how the private dentists could potentially "help out" with examinations of children and adolescents? It currently rests solely on the regional dentists, as it appears in most regions. There is much I have questions about.

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that this reform and the 67-plus reform mean that the entire body shall be included. It is to become cheaper for the 67-pluses. But it will not make any difference for the large population who today cannot afford to go to the dentist.

Unfortunately, we live in a country with significantly higher unemployment during this mandate period. We live in a country where people have been impoverished. I still wonder: How is this reform going to help exactly them? That is what I am interested in.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

As I stated, it is a first stage. We intend to include the entire population. Now we are entering primarily so that we can have the resources required. We begin with those whom we believe have the worst conditions to receive the dental care they need. We assess that it is the elderly. Young people have quite good dental health today. We are simply starting in the right order. We start with the elderly with the worst oral health, and then we move forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Vikström (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats promised in the election dental care on the same terms as all other care. But now, instead, the Sweden Democrats are reducing the budget for dental care for young people by 576 million together with the government. That is what the matter is about today and what we are debating. It is not as the member said that your reform begins with the elderly, but it begins with the young. It is, more specifically, half a billion less for the young who are affected.

In addition to this, the proposal contains a shifting of costs onto the regions over several years for the transitional rules in the proposal. Several regions have pointed this out. The transitional rules concern that for dental care treatments for the age group up to 23 years that have been started or have been decided upon before the entry into force at the turn of the year, the older provisions regarding fee exemption for young people shall apply. This will continue for several years. The regions do not, however, receive any compensation according to the proposal.

My question to the Sweden Democrats is: Will the Sweden Democrats contribute to the regions receiving compensation for this?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Vikström, for the questions!

Dental care is a complex issue. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we have constantly spoken about wanting to see a high-cost protection similar to the one that exists in other health and medical care and which applies to everyone.

Everyone sitting here in the chamber knows that there are deficiencies in dental care. We do not have the resources required. Therefore, we need to start with one step. We do that now by returning, as I said earlier, to the age that was before 2017.

So, they first changed the free dental care to age 23 in 2017. Why did they do that? We know that we had a large wave of unaccompanied minors arriving then, and perhaps they saw that it was needed. What do I know.

Until then, young adults up to 19 years of age had free dental care. I believe that most here have had it until that age without there being any problems. Here, we introduce double dental care support for that age group up to 24 years.

One can have financial difficulties at different ages. Naturally, it does not matter whether one is young or old or where one is located. But those who have the worst oral health are the elderly. They may receive medications and begin to have some problems with motor skills. It is primarily there that we need to allocate the resources.

The dental care support that exists in Sweden has three parts. We have the general dental care allowance, the special dental care allowance, and the high-cost protection. The special dental care allowance can also be obtained if one has special needs. The regions can provide grants for the patient's treatment if they have different diseases, need repeated treatments, and so on.

There are some different parts in this that ensure those who need dental care receive the dental care they need.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Vikström (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, but I did not perceive any answer to my question. I will repeat it.

I still want to point out that the proposal being discussed today, which we are now debating, is very far from the Sweden Democrats' election promise. One could say it is its opposite. Instead of introducing a high-cost protection, a one-sided saving is being made on dental care for young people.

If we talk about the dental care investigation that we commissioned, there was a whole concept for high-cost protection. That included, for example, a dental health plan with a cheap basic examination of the teeth. The proposal being presented today contains nothing of the sort. It also does not look like anything such will come forward in the future.

What is wrong here is that a cut is being made unilaterally in the dental care area for all persons in the age group 20-29 years without simultaneously presenting any proposals for improvements.

I return again to the transitional rules and the question I wanted an answer to. The transitional rules should have been covered by a funding principle. The government is now reducing the state expenditure and shifting the costs onto the regions.

What will the Sverigedemokraterna do to ensure that the regions receive compensation for this? It is, after all, a healthcare crisis in the regions, which means that it seriously affects their economy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

As I said earlier, it is simply a complex issue. We have for far too long had an overconsumption of dental care. This has also resulted in us having the long queues.

I know that some regions have started work to ensure that those who are in the queue and who have not yet started their treatment will still receive that treatment. Those who have already started their treatment will be allowed to complete their treatment. Then, of course, one can discuss where you stand in the queue.

My hope is that all of these shall receive the financial assistance they need so that they can complete their treatments. But I cannot stand here today and promise anything other than what appears in the bill.

We are lowering the age for free dental care for young people to 19 years and introducing more reforms that will ensure more people are included in the high-cost protection in the future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Vikström (S)

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of our reservation.

The government's proposal is to make a unilateral cut in the dental care area for all persons between 20 and 29 years of age without simultaneously presenting any proposals for improvements. The government removes free dental care for 20-23-year-olds and halves the general dental care support for 24-29-year-olds. In order to afford large tax cuts for high-income earners next year, the government and Sverigedemokraterna are saving on dental care. Socialdemokraterna oppose these cuts.

The previous S-led government decided to task a special investigator to review how the dental care system could be developed to become more resource-efficient and equitable. The investigation was to, among other things, propose models for a new and adjusted state high-cost protection. In March 2021, the investigation submitted its proposals to the government and then proposed a new high-cost protection.

As part of the financing, savings in the dental care area were simultaneously proposed in the form of lowered age limits for free dental care for children and adolescents as well as for the state dental care subsidy. The dental care investigation concluded that these were conceivable changes to, together with additional supplements, finance a new high-cost protection.

But instead of proceeding with the dental care investigation's proposal, the government appointed a new investigation and now proposes a unilateral saving within the dental care area for 20-29-year-olds. By presenting this saving without simultaneously submitting any proposals for improvements, the government has delayed the opportunities to introduce a new high-cost protection for dental care.

There are risks with the proposal that are not sufficiently analyzed. Even though young adults generally have better oral and dental health than, for example, older people, it is simultaneously the case that oral health and dental care consumption differ between different groups and individuals in society, even within age groups. For example, 6 percent of all people between 16 and 29 years old consider that they have poor oral health. Removing or reducing the financial incentive for this group to visit the dental clinic could lead to major consequences for them, writes the Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. There are groups and individuals between 20 and 29 years old who have greater needs, and they may be hit hard by the proposal.

The raised age limit for free dental care has primarily benefited those individuals who otherwise would have stopped visiting the dental clinic continuously. Free dental care has increased the probability that people with poor dental health and people living in households with low disposable income visit the dental clinic for examination.

Those between 20 and 23 years of age shall now receive a general dental care subsidy of 600 kronor per year. The reference price for a standard examination is 1,015 kronor next year, but very many dental clinics have a higher price as there is free pricing. The 600 kronor therefore do not go far, not even for a standard examination.

The Swedish Pensions Agency considers the impact analysis for patients to be too brief in the proposal and believes it is necessary to analyze the consequences for different groups in society before changes in the state dental care support. But unfortunately, no such analysis is included in the bill. Several agencies are also calling for a follow-up of the consequences after implementation.

Mr. Speaker! There is also a risk that those who have previously had free dental care will lose contact with dental care with this proposal. The Government has not presented any proposal for a measure that could counteract such a risk, unlike the previous dental care investigation, which had such a proposal: a dental health plan. It is a deficiency in the bill.

I believe that representatives for the government parties and SD will speak about other political proposals for dental care than those we are to debate today, and we have already heard them do so. But the government has not submitted any other propositions than this proposal, which means that all 20-29-year-olds next year will receive a lower subsidy for dental care visits than they received before the reform. 20-23-year-olds are particularly affected, as they have had free dental care. It is a saving of 576 million. Other proposals have been pushed into the future. The dental care investigation's other proposals to achieve a resource-efficient and equitable dental care have not been used.

The Social Democrats believe that in the current tough economic situation, it is completely misguided to make dental care for young people more expensive next year.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Ragnarsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think the member misses an important point in his speech. There is an investigation in the Government Offices currently being prepared which concerns carrying out a transformation in dental care.

One can also listen to the industry, and then I am not just talking about the private dentists but about the entire industry. The industry talks about the displacement effect that children's dental care has specifically on the public dental care, which nevertheless has the main mission to manage children's dental health care. The public dental care has not been able to call their adult patients to the extent they would like.

A speaker in a previous exchange pointed out that 49 percent fall outside of dental care due to socioeconomic effects. But I am 54 years old, and I go to the public dental clinic. I belong to the 49 percent who do not receive any summons, and this is because the public dental clinic does not have time to handle adult patients. Lowering the age limit for a group that has relatively good dental health will then free up time for the public dental clinic to, for example, take a greater responsibility for its adult patients, which is what is desired.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Vikström (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would still like to focus on the matter we are discussing today and the opportunity the government has had to present a dental care reform aimed at more equitable dental care.

It is true that there are major problems in dental care in Sweden, but simply placing a saving on the young will not solve the problems. The government has also not presented any comprehensive proposal. This is only a saving on young adults with weaker finances in a situation where one is very tightly squeezed financially. Families are it, and young people are too. It is warnings, and it is difficulties in getting a job after high school. It is young adults who are caught in the middle here.

In the bill, it actually also says something sensible: Free dental care for young adults with more extensive dental needs and weak finances can mean an opportunity to address the problems in good time. Otherwise, the problems risk affecting dental health for a very long time to come. So that is what it says in the bill, but it does not affect the government's proposal. It is still an insight.

Now I am speaking about developmental perspectives, i.e., long-term orthodontic treatment and so on. In that case, it may be justified to offer young adults an opportunity for free treatment, but now they no longer get that. There is no measure at all in the bill that takes this into account.

Instead, the government argues that it is an advantage that this group is transferred from a price-regulated to a competitive part of the dental care market. That is how they argue. It is positive for the private dental care market and negative for the individuals.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Ragnarsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! When looking at the 19-23 age group, one has been able to see that it consumes a very large amount of dental care. Much of that dental care is not justified. This suggests that there is a fairly large awareness of dental health in the group. We also have a fantastic pediatric dental care in the country. The child's entire upbringing is followed, which means that nowadays we have fantastic dental health among our children and young people. There are always exceptions to all rules – we all know that – but generally speaking, this large group has very good dental health.

That that group should then push aside the possibilities for the public dental care to work with such things, which will have a very large impact on other patient groups in the future, I do not think is right and reasonable. I still want to assert that this is a reform effort and a first step towards something that will become better for the large mass of people in society.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Vikström (S)

Mr. Speaker! I find it very difficult to see that it would be a first step in the right direction to introduce unilateral cuts for a large youth group with poor finances. It would have been extremely much better to try to address the great inequality in Sweden regarding dental care, that we have a competence shortage that is huge, or that dental care is an increased market for welfare crime. There is an enormous need for measures.

The great conflict here is that the government is lowering taxes by billions for the well-off. Then there is money. If one had wanted to improve dental health for everyone instead of pitting the young against the old, one could have done that.

You want to refer all these young people to private healthcare providers. We know that their prices are increasing. There are even examples of individual measures being 180 percent above the reference price list. That is where the government is now sending these 20-year-olds with no or low income, young adults with poor dental health and a need for orthodontic treatment, and others in this group who have special dental care needs.

It is also emphasized in the bill as an advantage for the government and Sverigedemokraterna that young people end up in this private dental care market with unlimited pricing. It stands in the bill.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Ragnarsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating SoU4 Amended age limit for free dental care. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Mr. Speaker! Public resources should be used where they do the most good, and that is not the case when it comes to free dental care for young adults between 19 and 23 years of age. This is a group that has very good dental health, linked to the fact that Sweden has the world's best pediatric dentistry where children are followed and examined continuously during their upbringing. The preventive work leads to the fact that today we can boast of very good dental health among our children, something that will play an important role in their continued lives.

The legislative change is proposed to enter into force on 1 January 2025. Patients who are currently undergoing treatment will be exempted through transitional rules stating that those in treatment at the time of entry into force shall continue to have fee exemption according to the old regulations.

Mr. Speaker! There are obviously risks with lowering the age limit. It could mean that this group might deliberately refrain from going to the dentist. But at the same time, we see that this group today consumes more dental care than is justified based on their dental health, which indicates that there is a high level of awareness in the age group that should guarantee that they will continue to attend their dental appointments.

Mr. Speaker! The responsibility for children's and youth dental care lies today with the public dental care system. Such a task is not entirely uncomplicated, as a significant displacement effect has been noted within the public dental care system regarding adult dental care. There is no time to call adult patients to the extent that one would like, and instead, time is spent examining relatively healthy mouths. A lowering of the age limit for free dental care will therefore lead to the ability to free up time to treat adult patients with other issues, which is an important part of the competence development for the individual dentist.

Mr. Speaker! Folktandvården also has the educational mandate for newly graduated dentists. Such a mandate is of the utmost importance for us to meet future challenges regarding the supply of competence. Even here, however, a displacement effect has been observed, linked to the fact that there are not enough patients in all age groups to treat.

It is given that as a newly graduated dentist, one wants to treat as many patients with as many different conditions as possible in order to develop one's professional knowledge, and when that does not happen, one chooses to seek out other actors. For the public dental care, it becomes a Catch-22, where it becomes increasingly difficult to provide the necessary competence for its operations and fulfill its various assignments.

Mr. Speaker! The change we are now implementing is part of a larger reform effort regarding Swedish dental healthcare. The importance of oral health for other medical conditions has become increasingly clear over the years, and many conditions within cardiovascular care can be linked directly to the patient's oral health. The same applies to neurological diseases. These are large patient groups within our health and medical care. At the same time, these conditions are often linked to patients of increasing age, and therefore it feels relevant to make investments in the elderly group in society.

During the autumn, the final report Tiotandvård - an enhanced high-cost protection for dental care, was submitted, and it is currently being prepared in the Government Offices. The main feature of this investigation is that the high-cost protection shall be linked to the patient's age, in this case 67 years and older.

Mr. Speaker! The change of the age limit for free dental care is something that is seen as positive in the entire dental care industry, regardless of the form of operation. Both public dental care in the form of Folktandvården and private actors through their industry organizations are positive about this change. There is an agreement that the previous support has failed, at the expense of other age groups' dental health. It is also hoped that this will generate time for all age groups to ensure more equal oral health across the entire country and in that way also make it more interesting to work in rural areas and in smaller towns.

Mr. Speaker! Reform work is not easy. Trade-offs must constantly be made to ensure that public funds are used in the best way. These are called priorities. I am very pleased that we can, here and now, present a bill that has a majority in the chamber and which will serve as the basis for the continued reform work within the dental health area.

I look forward to the continued work of reforming the area, with the aim of making Swedish dental healthcare even better and more equitable across the entire country.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! This sounds like a brilliant reform. Everything will be solved. The dentists will flock in when this leads to it becoming more difficult for this young group, which is to be burdened by this proposal.

I have a few questions. One could imagine other things that would help. Now, the public dental care service takes responsibility for children and young people, right? Could one not imagine that the private actors would also do that? That is something one could perhaps also experiment with.

I have traveled around a lot in Sweden and met many dentists in the regions who are having a very difficult time. It is only in Stockholm that you can get a dentist appointment instantly. That is because many dentists establish themselves here, as well as many private actors. How would it be if you had looked into that, Thomas Ragnarsson? It might come in the next reform package. What do I know?

How are we going to solve the enormous problems that exist within the public dental care? They are boundless. It is also about a lack of competence, a lack of dentists. I find it difficult to see that those problems are to be solved by worsening things for this group. But the member does not seem to have any problem with that. Still, there is no super-analysis here.

Mr. Speaker! Another question is how one is to follow up to ensure that this turns out well. Who guarantees that, and who is to look at it? I am very doubtful that this will in any way benefit dental care in all of Sweden, and that by cutting down on this group we will achieve equitable dental care.

Overconsumption can be discussed. Imagine if we had the same ideas about healthcare and said that people overconsumed healthcare, for example with the private actors. My God, what a life that would be!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Ragnarsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Member Rågsjö!

Now, it is so fortunate that I come from Kronoberg County, where just over 30 percent of children's dental care is handled by private actors. Another member here in the chamber comes from another county where they have the same figures. It is therefore not unambiguous that the private actors do not take care of children. In many places, especially in many smaller towns, they do so because they feel a responsibility towards the group to help each other.

The problem for the public dental care remains, however. They are so choked with the children's dental care that the effect becomes a displacement of other patients. I am not a dentist and do not have huge knowledge in the dental field, but the entire industry, regardless of what kind of actor one is, agrees that this is a reform that will actually make a difference for the working environment at our dental clinics. If our dentists had seen the problem – that dental health will plummet in this group and that there will be incredible problems – I do not think they would have been so positive.

I still feel quite secure that this is a first step in a reform process. It is a group that generally has good dental health. Then we should not make investments in that group that have the consequence that one chooses not to call other adult patients. Then these may go too long with injuries that can become irreversible but that could have been addressed at an early stage.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! Regardless of where one lives, one can see a huge class difference when it comes to teeth, even though there are many dentists available.

It is perhaps a bit unusual to initiate a reform by cutting back in this way. The major problem that dentists otherwise talk about is a lack of competence, a lack of dentists. The type of questions that arise are: How are we going to get more dentists? How are we going to get them to also be present in rural areas? Those are the big questions within dental care today.

The big question for the population is the enormous class difference that exists between those of us who have post-secondary education and those who do not. These are extreme figures. That is not solved with this.

Now you have another proposal in motion, Thomas Ragnarsson. It is that we who are older than 67, the 67-plussars, should be given the opportunity to get significantly cheaper dental care. It should be included in a high-cost protection in a completely different way. That sounds very good. But I am thinking of the poor mother with very poor finances who cannot prioritize dental care at all. Is she supposed to come with her teeth when she is 67 years old?

Or have you imagined some kind of plan to achieve more equal dental care? I find it difficult to see that. Unfortunately, it is the case that the right-wing parties talk a lot about equality, and it sounds very good. But in reality, it doesn't quite become that. Not even this shows that we will get equal dental care, but it is something that one does and hopes will turn out well. I wonder, for example, how it is to be followed up.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Ragnarsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The member mentions the supply of competence. It is a huge problem. But it is not facilitated by the fact that the competence we have actually gets to work with things that do not develop them in their professional role. Folktandvården has the responsibility for the education of newly graduated dentists, but the newly graduated choose to leave Folktandvården. It becomes a Catch-22. One has two missions, but they clash with each other to such an extent that the newly graduated dentists do not get the breadth of examinations and treatments that they want in order to strengthen their profession. Therefore, they leave Folktandvården.

We see that as well in the rural areas. There is a lot of talk about how it is difficult to staff smaller dental clinics in the Norrland counties. They have a huge problem. But it is not only a Norrland problem. We have the same problem in Småland, in northern Skåne, and so on. Smaller towns are not as attractive to work in, regardless of whether it is as a private dentist or in the public dental care.

Folktandvården's mission will then be to handle practically only the young, because that is what they have time for. But I know that there are private actors who are interested in taking a part of the children's dental care. It is not a matter of saying: That is something Folktandvården can handle. Especially in places where one sees that Folktandvården cannot manage it, one takes its social responsibility in society to ensure that all children receive the care they should have.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! If I had had one more turn to speak, I would have said: Follow the money! You can understand for yourselves what that means.

Mr. Speaker! In this chamber, there is much talk about equality in healthcare. It is something that everyone stands behind. It would be difficult as a member to say that one is not for equal healthcare. It would be very bad.

It sounds good that the right also is for equal healthcare. But in reality, it actually becomes the opposite in every way when the right is in power. Now we are talking about the teeth, but later there will also be a discussion about the high-cost protection for medicines. Question by question, we get a more unequal society.

Now we are going to talk about teeth. It is a typical class issue, Mr. Speaker. The Sweden Democrats and the government want, with this bill, to lower the age limit for free dental care from 23 to 19 years and that the age limit for participating in state dental care support shall in a similar way be lowered from 24 to 20 years.

It was we who pushed through the age limits. It is simply a left-wing reform. And it has increased equality in terms of oral health and access to dental care for this young group.

This is not a good decision for them. But it is also not a decision that means it will become fantastic for all other groups. That cannot be said, also against the background that the right wing is cutting back on the entire healthcare sector. Then one cannot say that this will become fantastic in any way.

In 2022, 3.9 million adults went to dental care. That may sound very good, but it is the lowest recording since 2009, following the pandemic year. Dental visits have steadily decreased in all groups except among those aged 85 and over. They go to the dentist.

The statistics also indicate that dental health and dental visits differ significantly in terms of education level. It is, therefore, a clear class issue. If 77.6 percent of those with high education receive a dental examination approximately every three years and 49 percent of those with only pre-gymnasium education receive it, one might wonder what that is due to. Is it a matter of lack of interest or that they simply do not have the money for it and prioritize it away?

At the same time, one can look at the acute dental visits - you know, when you get severe toothache. Who is it that goes there? Is it "kamrer Olle" or is it someone else? It has turned out that, of course, it is those who only have a primary education. They account for a high percentage of the acute visits.

Dental care should be strengthened, not worsened. That should be the starting point. You say that this pushes out resources from the public dental care. Then one can wonder if it really is the right starting point. I have been out and met many dentists across Sweden, including private ones. Everyone tells what this is about. Within the public dental care, they wish for a state initiative so that private dentists should also take care of children and young people. One could think that it should be voluntary and that it is very nice; one does a good deed as a private dentist. But it would be good if the public and private shared the whole thing? That is what I think.

Now, the public dental care system has to work very much with children and young people, but it is about the fact that they have the entire responsibility for it. Then it becomes children and young people. It also happens that the dentists who want to educate themselves for other types of dental problems move on, and why not to Stockholm where there are a thousand different actors to choose from? One can learn teeth whitening, adjustment, and how to set diamonds in the front teeth.

What if you had a plan? How are we going to solve the enormous problems with the supply of competence of dentists? This is not going to solve that problem. Imagine if you had a plan! But maybe it will come in step two?

The previous government decided to task a special investigator with reviewing how the dental care system can be developed to become more resource-efficient and equitable. That sounds good. This was handed over to the previous government in 2021. There were various proposals to be made. The proposals were to be financed, for example, by lowering the age, as is being done now, but there was also so much else in the reform. Now you take a part and remove something that you consider completely unnecessary for the young groups, because they go to the dentist so often and have an overconsumption. Then I wonder what overconsumption is.

You are taking this proposal without making any improvements whatsoever. None of those exist.

Teeth are a part of the body. Dental care should, in the long run, be included in healthcare. Everyone should be able to afford to have good teeth. Since the dental care market was deregulated, prices have increased extremely. The high costs for examination and treatment mean that those who earn the least and visit the dentist less often are forced to abstain. All surveys show this. People with very low incomes have no benefit from today's high-cost protection, because it only applies to costs over 3,000 and only half the cost is reimbursed. This makes teeth a class marker.

Now the government and the Sweden Democrats say that they want to perform a major work and introduce a high-cost protection for persons who are 67 years and older from January 2026. There is a diffuse plan that it could also apply to other age groups, but it is difficult to see at the current stage.

It is all about priorities. One can prioritize dental care and healthcare, or one can prioritize tax cuts for the wealthiest. That is what politics is about – prioritizing.

Just Sverigedemokraterna had a clear pledge before the election that there would indeed be a dental care reform for all age groups. It was supposed to be great. Now they land on the age of 67. As we were told, we have to wait and see regarding the plans.

We are very critical of the government's management of dental health. Ensuring that children and young people go to the dentist creates very good conditions for the rest. We have a reform package for this. It is well-elaborated, priced, and so on. Part of this we will perhaps discuss on December 10. Until then, I want to move for approval of our reservation which we have together with the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Rågsjö for the speech. I agree with much of what the Member presented. It is important that everyone has the opportunity to take care of their dental health. Teeth are a part of the body.

The decision that we are to make today is something that the entire industry stands behind. Out in the operations, there is a shortage of resources, which several members have raised.

What would happen if we introduced this all at once? I wonder how MP Rågsjö views the problem with the queues that exist. How would we get resources for this when there is a shortage already now? If we introduced everything all at once, it would cause the queues to increase significantly. It would be interesting to hear about that.

As the member stated, this was a very important issue for the Sverigedemokraterna and it is so still. I am very happy to belong to a party that has ensured that we take these steps forward. No governments have done this previously. It has been talked about, but as with so much else, it has mostly been talked about without getting down to business. I am therefore very happy that we have started this reform, and we see it as that this is only the beginning.

As I have said, I want to know how, according to the member, one would manage the longer queues that would arise if everything were released at once.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker and Member Boulwén! One must make the dental profession specifically within the public dental care much more attractive so that we get more people there. If one wants to talk about overconsumption of dental care, I think one should look at Stockholm. One must have a plan, and there must be conditions to hire more in rural areas under better terms. But it is not only in rural areas that there is a shortage of dentists. On the other hand, there are extremely many dental practices in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. One can wonder why it has become so. I believe that is very important.

I also believe it is important to get people into dental care early. The idea itself is that the earlier we get them in, the better conditions we have to help them with their dental health. If one comes when they are 67 years old and have had very poor finances for a long time and have not been able to afford it, the treatment becomes costly and long-lasting.

I imagine that you will soon come forward with a plan for how to be able to develop the skills of staff within the public dental care. How should it be done? What resources should be allocated to areas where there is a shortage of dentists? Above all, it is better for everyone the sooner people enter dental care.

Furthermore, I think that the private dentists should, of course, be allowed to open their doors to take care of children and young people. I think it is a matter of course. It has been shifted over to the public dental care, which now has the specific responsibility. It has been tough for them, especially as they receive fewer resources.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We still have relatively good conditions for achieving good dental health today. We have free dental care. Until 2017, it applied until one was 19 years old, and we are now returning to that arrangement. It shall therefore apply to children and young people up to 19 years of age.

The question is where to draw the line now. As I said, there are deficiencies in the operations. We are working very much on that. There are many investigations underway in the Government Offices where, for example, conditions for increased competence supply in rural areas are to be developed. In the investigation regarding dental care, it is proposed to increase compensation for patients living in rural areas. These are different extra sums that one is to receive for that.

As it stands now, we do not have resources in the operations across the country to take care of all those who will seek dental care now that we are strengthening the high-cost protection for those aged 67 and over. We must do something to free up resources. We see it as an important step to nevertheless start with this group who have good dental health. How does the member see us otherwise obtaining those resources here and now, for that is what matters now?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not, of course, mean that the state should step in and take over the private sector, but I still think that it should be regulated that the private sector should also take responsibility for children and young people. It should not just be a gesture from the private sector. It would mean very much, but I do not see it coming with this government.

Then I still do not understand how to address the enormous inequality that exists regarding dental health. If one considers that it is 77 percent of us who have higher education who go to the dentist, but only in rough terms 49 percent of those who have lower education who do so, one understands the complexity. It is these 49 percent who cannot afford to go to the dentist who will turn 67, if the rules have not been changed before then. But hopefully something happens before then. Hopefully we can change the government and there will be a change.

I still think that you are not solving particularly much with this. There is talk of displacement effects. But then one must also have some kind of plan for who is to receive children and young people in general. How is the dental care service to receive training in working with all types of problems within dental health? This is not included in the investigation, but perhaps another investigation will come regarding that. You have so many investigations ongoing.

Now one is performing an Alexander strike, and it hits the young. Not all young adults have a fantastic economy. With an unemployment rate that is ticking higher in Sweden than in other European countries, it can become very bad economically for this group.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we have generally seen very good oral health, and it has become better over time. There are several reasons why it looks this way, but preventive dental care for children and young people is undoubtedly one of the most important. There, regular examinations have occurred, conscious work from schools and child healthcare, increasingly regular toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and, when I went to school, also fluoride rinsing as well as adequate treatment for caries and dental injuries. Collectively, this has led to more and more people having more teeth remaining further into their years. In 2023, a 50-year-old had, on average, four more intact teeth in the oral cavity than a 50-year-old just ten years earlier.

But even if we have good oral health and good dental status in Sweden, challenges are not lacking. One of the biggest challenges is that there is a large inequality between different groups in society. The inequality is largely linked to education level, economic conditions, and geographical location. At the same time, it is for natural reasons that the best dental status is found among children and young people, while the worst dental status is found among the elderly.

When one adds these different factors together, they also reinforce each other. Among 67-year-olds living in a large city, it is only 12 percent who have fewer than 20 teeth remaining in their mouth, but among those who are 80 years old and live in rural areas, it is as many as 44 percent who have fewer than 20 remaining teeth. If one further divides the statistics by education level and economic status, the gap between best and worst dental status becomes even larger.

What conclusions can be drawn from this? Well, reasonably that the preventive work for children and young people is absolutely crucial for building up good oral health that lasts throughout life. Therefore, the responsibility for children's and young people's dental care shall, naturally, remain intact. On the other hand, it is reasonable to make priorities in the group of adults to place the resources where they are best needed.

It is this that is the basis for the report we are dealing with today, where it is proposed that young adults in the age group 20-23 years should themselves bear a larger share of the cost for their dental care. In this way, resources are freed up to prioritize more vulnerable groups, not least the group of elderly, where we see that the dental status is worst.

Are resources only about money? No, it is partly about money but just as much about personnel. Today, we have difficulty staffing the dental care. It concerns both dentists, dental nurses, and dental hygienists. This makes it extra important to use the resources smartly. And the best way to use the resources is, of course, to do so where they do the most good, that is to use them on the groups that have the worst oral health and dental status. The elderly belong there, which also appears very clearly in the dental care investigation's final report, which was presented as recently as in October.

At the same time, the dental status and the economic conditions look very different even in this group. There is therefore reason to discuss what a new system with high-cost protection should look like in order to be as accurate as possible, but that is something we must return to when the government has presented its bill based on the submitted report and after the ongoing referral process.

Mr. Speaker! Oral health is important for how we humans feel in general and for our quality of life. Therefore, it is important that all people in Sweden can be offered high-quality dental care at reasonable prices. It is also important that we use our resources in the right way. Therefore, the Center Party participated in and implemented the dental care reform in 2008, which included a general dental care subsidy and a high-cost protection. The Center Party was also involved in 2013 and implemented further reinforcements with support for persons who, due to illness or disability, run an increased risk of poor oral health.

Now we face another major reform within dental care. What we are debating today is the first step in that reform. For us, it is important that resources are prioritized to those who have the greatest needs, to risk groups, and to the groups where oral health and dental status are worst. The group of young adults in general does not belong there, but the group of elderly in general definitely does. Therefore, the Center Party stands behind the proposals in the committee report regarding the changed age limit for free dental care, and we look forward to debating the design of a new high-cost protection for dental care in the near future.

In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today's debate concerns an issue that primarily affects a specific group: young adults. It is about a time in life when many perhaps feel immortal and when the focus lies on all the opportunities that suddenly open up. You get to decide for yourself about your life, and you get to decide about your own money. Many are students – I was – during these years. I remember how, when planning meals, one primarily took costs into account. Costs concerning something that was not perceived as absolutely necessary here and now were consistently deprioritized, and that definitely included dental costs.

It was among other things this analysis that formed the basis for the previous government implementing the reform that made it possible for young people to receive dental care at no cost until the age of 23. When one is 23 years old, one is still young. But perhaps the routines and responsibilities of adult life have managed to set in for a few more. Probably more have also developed the habit of going to the dentist, a habit that one then is reluctant to give up.

The intention behind the reform was to ensure that young people, often with poor finances, would not postpone dental care. At the same time, it was intended to contribute to them developing a habit of continuing to visit the dentist. This has also led to more young people visiting the dentist than before. They have not stayed away for cost reasons.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet is very aware that there are more groups in society than just young adults who have poor finances and who have difficulty covering their dental care costs. Therefore, we also advocate that dental care should receive a high-cost protection that can be equated with the healthcare system's high-cost protection.

Such a high-cost protection must be introduced in such a way that access to dental care is secured regardless of where in the country the person who needs dental care lives and regardless of what dental care needs a person has. Resources must be used in the best way. Such a reform implies, among other things, that a better system to reach those with the greatest needs and to work for more equal dental health must be introduced. Therefore, we welcomed the proposals in the investigation from 2021 that has been mentioned several times.

It was an investigation that we were involved in appointing, and it was precisely about a dental care system for more equal dental health. There was the proposal to remove free dental care for young adults in there as well, but it was combined with other measures that, among other things, aimed at better reaching those with great needs and working towards a more equal system. There were also proposals here on a future design of high-cost protection which would mean a very large difference in price for the individual patient. It is the entire reform that we thought was positive. Now, a part of it has been picked out.

The government has made a reality of precisely that part which involves deteriorations for young adults and not the other parts. The Green Party regrets this. We would like to see that the work to establish a general high-cost protection is continued.

The government appointed a new inquiry instead of proceeding with the proposals from the 2021 inquiry. That inquiry has recently submitted its report. Here is the direction, which we have heard many times in the debate, that in a first step, the dental care costs for elderly people over 67 years of age should be lowered, to then potentially proceed further.

The significantly reduced costs proposed in the investigation are proposed to apply to certain interventions aimed at "freedom from pain and disease, the ability to eat, chew and speak without major obstacles, or an aesthetically acceptable result". It is thus parts of dental care for the elderly that will be included in the large new high-cost protection for the elderly.

When the government previously during the autumn made announcements about reduced costs for dental care for the elderly, reference was made to the proposals of the then still upcoming investigation. Increased costs for the state were mentioned, which were at the same level as those also specified in the investigation. It can therefore be assumed that it is the proposal for so-called "tiotandvård" (ten-year dental care) in the investigation that will be taken forward.

The Green Party has not taken a position on all of the investigation's proposals, but we can note that the investigation proposes that a so-called oral health profile should eventually replace the age limit as the criterion for dental care, i.e., that the patient shall pay 10 percent of the cost for the specified types of treatment.

This with the oral health profile sounds a bit like the proposal that was in the investigation from 2021. It was about, among other things, ensuring that those with the greatest needs get access to care.

A dental health profile is a more purposeful criterion than age for identifying patients with the worst oral health, the investigation writes itself. The investigation also suggests that healthcare providers should receive higher compensation for care of patients in rural municipalities. That also sounds like a good measure, we think, without having had time to take a position in detail.

But today it is the increased costs for young adults that we are debating. The government is therefore choosing to remove today's support without any other system being in place. We oppose that.

That older people receive reduced dental care costs is something that Miljöpartiet also welcomes, but that is a different debate. It would also be desirable that the reform is introduced without another group being affected.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to mention, as several previous debaters have also done, that dental care has many other challenges than costs for the patients. At the same time as measures are implemented to make dental care more economically accessible for more people, we need to ensure, for example, the future supply of competence. How do we ensure that enough people train to become dentists and that these also want to be active across the entire country, for example?

Additional measures really need to be taken here. It must be possible, both now and in the future, to get an appointment with a dentist within a reasonably short time. One should also be able to go there without the finances completely crashing.

I vote in favor of the reservation.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Westerlund, for your speech! We have discussed on several occasions during the debate who should be prioritized and how one should prioritize. As I have said a number of times, the Sweden Democrats want a high-cost protection that covers the entire population. That is and has always been the Sweden Democrats' starting point. But we also see that the resources required for this do not exist at the current time.

I previously asked a member here how they intend to succeed in getting the resources in place to be able to take care of the increased number, which we will probably see now given that a reinforced high-cost protection is being introduced for those aged 67 and over. We know that the industry is already on its knees.

I wonder a bit how Miljöpartiet intends for us to get these resources here and now, if we are to introduce everything all at once. The idea is, after all, that one should free up resources by waiting. It would be a bit interesting to hear how Miljöpartiet thinks regarding that question.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you very much for the question. We in Miljöpartiet think that the best proposal we have seen so far is the one that was in the 2021 investigation. There was the proposal to remove free dental care for young adults, which is what the government has now introduced. But at the same time, a system was to be introduced aimed at conducting a more thorough screening to ensure that those with the greatest needs would be reached. It was, so to speak, a comprehensive package. It was, in itself, a proposal to remove free dental care for persons up to 23 years old, but at the same time there were other measures to protect the most vulnerable persons. Even the investigator there had understood that resources are not infinite. We thought that comprehensive package was the best solution.

I note that parts of the thoughts that were there seem to have been picked up by the new investigation, which has a reasoning regarding what the investigator calls an oral health profile. The investigator themselves seems to think that it is a better criterion than a strict age limit at 67 years. But this is something the government has wanted to move forward with, even though the investigator reasons a bit briefly that an oral health profile might be a more reasonable delimitation.

Our answer is that we thought the 2021 investigation had a reasonable package. Parts of this are picked up in the new investigation. We will, of course, follow this and see what is taken further there. Resources are not infinite. But Miljöpartiet has the same aspiration as several other parties. We also want to see a high-cost protection for everyone, so that everyone can get reasonable dental care costs. But we are also aware of the challenges on the way there.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Mr. Speaker! If we had proceeded with the investigation from 2021, we would still be standing here now. We need increased resources to be able to take care of everyone who will naturally seek dental care. We do not have those resources now. That was my question: How are we going to ensure that we get the resources we need here and now? This needs to be planned for the long term.

Unfortunately, we have had previous governments that have not fully prioritized Swedish residents to the extent that we in the Sverigedemokraterna want to do, but instead, very much money has been spent on other things. One could, for example, reduce aid, remove special rules that apply to illegal immigrants, and so on. There are a number of proposals that would allow more money and resources to be spent on the residents in Sweden.

I would like to ask a question to Member Westerlund. You say that you want to provide funds for continued free dental care. But when I look at your budget, I cannot see that you are providing funds for this. Instead, you are reducing budget item 1:4 by 126 million.

I therefore wonder where you are allocating the money in order to be able to maintain the free dental care for young people.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now it sounds as if the member is mixing up a few different types of measures. I understood the member saying that we need to release increased funds for those who will now seek dental care to a greater extent. But we think, therefore, that the system that is now, with the free dental care for young people up to 23 years old, can continue, and then there is no increase in consumed dental care just there.

As said, we would rather have seen the overall proposal from 2021, but parts of what is proposed in the new investigation we also think sound like they could be positive. One must, however, see it as a holistic measure, and now they have chosen to go in and cut into one part without implementing the other measures.

I must admit that I do not have a handle on exactly expenditure item 1:4, but what I can state is that the Environment Party's budget for expenditure area 9 is by far the largest. It is probably the case that that cost lies somewhere else. The budget is much higher than the other parties', and we have made major investments both in extra supplements to the regions, directed particularly towards healthcare and so on. That there should be no cuts in the dental care budget, we have therefore looked into.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report, which is the government's proposal on changed age limits for free dental care.

The Christian Democrats and the government are now initiating a dental care reform in two stages. In the first stage, we will introduce a high-cost protection for dental care similar to the one that exists today for healthcare. For this, the government is investing 3.4 billion kronor per year from 2026.

The proposal means that people who are 67 years and older will pay significantly lower dental care costs than they do today. Since many elderly people with poor dental health today prioritize away dental care due to the cost, this could lead to improved oral health among the elderly.

The Inquiry into an enhanced high-cost protection for dental care recently presented its final report. The Inquiry has been tasked with analyzing and submitting proposals on how the high-cost protection for dental care can be strengthened to more closely resemble that which exists in other healthcare and where elderly people with the worst oral health are prioritized. The Inquiry's proposals are now being prepared within the Government Offices.

Generally speaking, we have good oral health and dental care in Sweden. But specifically older people more often than others have problems with their teeth, partly because older people can have age-related problems, partly because older people often have a weaker economy than other groups, which can cause them to prioritize away dental care.

The objective of a reinforced high-cost protection is that patients should be able to visit dental care to a greater extent as needed and thus have better teeth. For us Christian Democrats, it is a self-evident matter that the elderly with the worst oral health should be prioritized. A reinforced high-cost protection means lower dental care costs for the patients, which is important because many elderly people with poor dental health prioritize away dental care.

Mr. Speaker! Folktandvården is strained, and the situation worsened when the age limit for free dental care was raised. This has resulted in young people with good dental health displacing groups with greater needs, for example, the elderly. Last year, we decided to lower the age for free dental care to ensure that dental care becomes more equitable, more resource-efficient, and more accessible for those who are in greatest need of it. In this way, more dental appointments can become available for those who truly need them.

To mitigate the consequences for young adults, the government has also decided to introduce a double general dental care subsidy of 600 kronor per year for persons from 20 to and including 23 years. This subsidy can be saved for two years and then amounts to 1,200 kronor.

Young adults will, just like other adults, have the opportunity to become eligible for the high-cost protection. The high-cost protection means a 50 percent subsidy for costs over 3,000 kronor and an 85 percent subsidy for costs over 15,000 kronor.

In addition to the double dental care subsidy, the government is investing 3.4 billion from 2026 onwards in the reform to strengthen the high-cost protection for dental care, which covers persons who are 67 years and older. The government is also investing in increased control in the dental care sector, for example, a licensing requirement for private dental providers and stronger conditions for connection to Försäkringskassan's electronic system, this for increased patient safety.

These are proposals that we believe constitute steps in the right direction. Free dental care will cover children and young people up to the year they turn 19. In addition, we are therefore introducing double dental care subsidies from 20 to 23 years old. We believe it has been wrong to prioritize this group over other groups who have significantly poorer oral health than today's 19-23-year-olds. It is problematic when this group, with free dental care, has partially been able to crowd out other dental care.

Mr. Speaker! We have capacity problems, and in that case, it is a matter of directing resources where the need is greatest, which primarily concerns the oral health of the elderly. This is clear in Veronica Palm's investigation and is something that has also been requested by the profession.

Dental care resources should go to those who need it most, we Christian Democrats argue.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 27 November.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)