(cont.) Response to interpellation 2024/25:406 on correct compensation in case of illness
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned correct compensation in the event of illness and how the sickness insurance functions. M argues that there are no reports showing that 9 percent of those who are denied sickness allowance are left without income 1. M emphasizes that sickness allowance can be granted until the age of 66 and that the legitimacy for the benefit should be high 1. M points out that those who are denied may be entitled to sickness benefit or financial assistance 1. M also argues that it is important to consider work capacity to avoid people being systematically retired early 2. S argues that sickness insurance is a central part of the Swedish model and that secure people can focus on contributing to society 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! It is always a bit strange when the debate is interrupted for two hours. But I shall try to make do with the interesting and important debate that we conducted together here.
The member has, in their interpellation, raised a letter from 2023 which the member refers to. It is stated to indicate that up to 9 percent of those who have been denied stand completely without income. It is said in the same breath as the member claims that the granted sickness benefits have fallen over a longer period. We have already established that this is not the case, Madam Speaker.
I just want to point out to the members that there is no ISF report submitted in 2023, nor in any other year, that has shown that 9 percent of those who were denied an application for sickness benefit were left without income.
Regarding the sickness benefit, the question of where the limit should be drawn for who should be able to receive the benefit is particularly important because sickness benefit can be granted for a long period. It can be granted until the month before one turns 66 years old. The legitimacy for the sickness benefit should therefore be high. This applies both for the decision in question and for the purpose of review.
It is worth mentioning in this context the case law that exists. The investigation into the sickness and activity compensation as well as benefits during rehabilitation submitted its report in August 2021. According to the investigation's assessment, the interpretation of the rules should have facilitated for the individual to be granted sickness compensation.
It is also important to remember that those who have had their application for sickness benefit denied may be entitled to sickness allowance instead. This means that few people are left completely without compensation upon denial of an application for sickness benefit.
In cases where it might occur that persons, for example, lack income qualifying for sickness benefit, those persons can instead receive financial assistance. If they receive social assistance, it could be counted in the statistics as them being without income. All of this varies from person to person and from case to case.
The processing of applications for sickness benefit must also be legally secure and take place in accordance with the applicable regulatory framework. If one is entitled to sickness benefit, one shall receive it. If one is not satisfied with the decision, it can be appealed. During 2023, 2,196 appeals were received by the Administrative Court. In the same year, the proportion of changed decisions was 13.5 percent.
ISF has shown that a majority of those who were denied an application for sickness allowance returned to work or studies. That people go to work or studies instead of receiving compensation from the sickness insurance must be seen as something positive.
Then, of course, the compensation for each individual must be examined on a case-by-case basis. That is the overarching part that the member's question and this interpellation are about.
Jessica Rodén (S)
Madam Speaker! I had hoped for a clearer answer from the Minister regarding the harmonization of the concept of the labor market in the rules on sickness benefit and sickness compensation.
I had also wished that the Minister, as I requested in my previous speech, could have elaborated a bit more on how the new mandate to preserve work capacity in gainful employment on the labor market would help the target group we are talking about today.
Madam Speaker! The sickness insurance is not a benefit. It is an insurance that we pay into through our work which shall be there when we become ill. It is a central part of the Swedish model and an explanation for why Sweden has historically had a high labor force participation.
Safe people can focus on contributing to society. Insecurity creates the opposite. Thank you for the debate!
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking you for the interpellation and the debate concerning a very important issue.
Our compensation systems are very important and are a very important part of our welfare society. How they are best designed and how we best help people who have temporary or permanent reduced capacity to work is important and is one of the clearest and most visible parts of our welfare state.
We are all in agreement that everyone can temporarily suffer from reduced capacity to work due to illness. It happens often, and it also usually works very well. We have all suffered through a temporary fever, or for that matter a global pandemic just in recent years. In those cases, the sickness insurance has truly functioned.
Many also remember the time when people with both the will and the ability to continue being an active part of the labor market and society were systematically early-retired. People were early-retired on an assembly line even though they still had both the will and the work capacity.
People were hidden and forgotten in the systems instead of being given the chance to return to work or, for that matter, studies. This was a massive betrayal of the people who still had much to give, much knowledge to contribute, and above all, a will to be able to continue. It was a massive waste of their knowledge, their competence, and their ability. It was so regardless of whether it was at 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60 percent.
I never want to end up there again. That is exactly why it is so important to look at work capacity and to continue working with those parts. I will never engage in hiding and forgetting people in the statistics.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.