Response to interpellation 2025/26:216 on increased innovation capacity in Swedish healthcare
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 KD argues that the government strengthens the healthcare system's innovative power through a historically large research and innovation proposal, national digital infrastructure for health data, as well as investments in AI and precision medicine 1. 2 3 KD believes that Sweden ranks high internationally and that the government is working to spread innovations between regions through Socialstyrelsen and the efficiency delegation 2 3. 3 KD argues that each region must take responsibility for leading its operations as it is difficult to find a national structure when 21 principals govern in different ways 3. 4 KD argues that Socialstyrelsen should work more operationally close and that the efficiency delegation is an example of how one can apply for funds to spread innovation 4. 5 S considers that the government's investment is not historically large as inflation has reduced the actual resources 5. 5 S argues that the government misses the need for innovation in primary care and geriatrics 5. 5 6 S emphasizes that innovation is broader than research and requires national structures and overall responsibility to be translated into practical operations 5 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Sjukvårdsministern Elisabet Lann (KD)
Madam Speaker! Karin Sundin has asked me what measures I and the government intend to take to increase the innovative power in Swedish health and medical care.
I share the view that healthcare is under severe pressure, not least as a result of a growing proportion of elderly people in the population and a large number of patients with chronic diseases. Innovation is an important part of the solution. With new ways of working, new technology and artificial intelligence (AI), diagnostics and treatment can be improved while time and healthcare resources can be freed up.
I would like to account for some of the measures that this government has taken in this area. Basic support for innovation work is important, and to strengthen Sweden's position here, the government presented a historically large research and innovation bill last year, where approximately 600 million kronor are allocated to life science and health. In the updated national life science strategy, the implementation of, among other things, groundbreaking technologies, new medical technology, and innovation in clinical practice are highlighted as some of the objectives. In line with the strategy, the government has taken several measures to strengthen the innovative power within healthcare.
One main line is to build a national digital infrastructure for health data – a prerequisite for innovative solutions. In the budget bill for 2026 (prop. 2025/26:1), the Government has signaled funds to Ehälsomyndigheten to develop this infrastructure. Additionally, from 2026, the Government is investing around half a billion kronor per year in AI and data to strengthen welfare and create better conditions for innovative solutions.
This initiative includes increased national co-financing of 100 million kronor per year to ensure that, among other things, hospitals and educational institutions with leading expertise in AI and data can, in the long term, develop innovative solutions that are significant for cancer care, neurology, and precision medicine, and that can be effectively validated to achieve clinical benefit in Sweden and Europe.
Another area where innovation is of great importance for health and medical care is precision medicine. The Government has for several years invested in introducing precision diagnostics in healthcare through targeted support to projects driven by Genomic Medicine Sweden.
In the budget bill for 2025 (prop. 2024/25:1), the government also announced a long-term commitment to the equitable implementation of precision health. As part of achieving exactly this, Socialstyrelsen has been tasked with leading a national coordination structure for precision health and developing the structures for a five-year implementation program for precision diagnostics.
In order for new products to reach healthcare early, effective structures for clinical trials are required, among other things. The Government has therefore initiated Swetrial, a national partnership for clinical trials, and appointed an inquiry to remove obstacles and enable an increased number of conducted clinical trials.
More clinical trials give healthcare personnel the opportunity to develop new skills while patients are given faster access to new products that improve diagnostics and treatment.
The Government has also tasked the Dental Care and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency with evaluating the cost-effectiveness of medical technology products for diagnosis and treatment of cancer, which facilitates their introduction into healthcare.
To support structural changes and strengthen efficiency, the government has also established an efficiency delegation for health and medical care. The delegation aims to support restructuring or efficiency measures by offering targeted funds and support to regions.
As I have stated, a broad effort is underway to create better conditions for innovations to be implemented in healthcare. I intend to closely follow the developments because I see that these issues are crucial for the future of healthcare.
Karin Sundin (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Health and Care for the answer.
I begin by stating that there is much in the Minister for Health and Social Affairs' response that I think is good when it comes to increased innovative power in Swedish healthcare. It is good that the government presented a research and innovation bill here on the Riksdag's table last year. It contains, as it should, much focus on research. It does not contain as much about innovations, and it contains almost nothing about innovations that are not innovations as a result of research specifically.
We Social Democrats do not share the Minister's view that it was a historically large investment. To put it as my colleagues in the Education Committee have: It is only true if one ignores the fact that price increases occur every year. Taking inflation and actual prices into account, the research proposal that the government submitted last year actually meant fewer new resources than the research proposal that was tabled in the Riksdag in 2020. Had we Social Democrats been allowed to decide, we would have allocated 700 million more than the government to research and innovation. But that debate has already been held here in the chamber.
I believe that the Minister and I are in complete agreement that Sweden should continue to be at the forefront of medical research, that more clinical trials are needed, and that there needs to be a major focus on new, innovative treatment methods and medicines.
I also think it is very good that the Minister highlights the need for a national digital infrastructure for health data. It is good that the Minister highlights the importance of innovative solutions for cancer care, neurology and precision medicine. I agree.
It still seems, however, that the Minister has missed my point: The biggest challenge for Swedish healthcare is the fact that 85 percent of healthcare resources are used for patients with chronic diseases and that that proportion will increase as the elderly in the population increase. How are we going to meet that challenge?
Furthermore, the minister seems to have missed that research and innovation are not the same thing. They are different things. Above all, the minister seems to have missed that there is a large scope for the government to do more than what she describes here when it comes to increasing the innovative power in Swedish healthcare.
The question is how Sweden should increase the innovative power in the entire healthcare system. Cancer care and precision medicine are extremely important pieces of the puzzle. But how is Sweden to increase the innovative power in primary care, where the many patients are, or in, for example, geriatrics?
Today, it takes somewhere between 10 and 20 years for innovative solutions to come into use in healthcare. I believe we are in complete agreement that it is far too long. If an innovation never happens, there will be no efficiency or improvement in healthcare, neither for the patients nor for the healthcare workers.
We need to discuss how Sweden creates better structures for research. But we also need to discuss how we create better structures for innovations in healthcare – in all of healthcare: in diabetes clinics, in blood pressure clinics, in dementia care, in the geriatric departments, and in palliative care. We need to talk about the innovations that are required for the benefit of the many patients, but also to facilitate the work for the staff who are to do the job with ever more patients while resources are shrinking.
I would like to know what the Minister for Health and Care's thoughts are regarding that question.
Sjukvårdsministern Elisabet Lann (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to once again thank Karin Sundin for the interpellation. This is a very important and pressing issue.
The interpellor is correct regarding the need to reach the large patient groups, which are also becoming increasingly larger. The number of people who are 80 years old or older will increase by almost 50 percent over the next six years. We also expect a larger number of chronic patients and an increased pressure on primary care. That primary care keeps pace with the development and that there is operationally close innovation and development is absolutely crucial in this.
The government is doing a lot in many areas. I want to remind, Mr. Speaker, that according to the UN's Global Innovation Index, Sweden is the world's second most innovative country. For almost two decades, Sweden has been ranked in the top three in the world. We have incredibly good conditions.
We must not settle and be satisfied with that. We need to continue developing healthcare in order to meet the needs of the future – on that, we are in complete agreement. But we must also not whip ourselves and believe that we are in such a bad position, when we actually have the lead in these issues in many ways.
Again: When it comes to the cancer area and precision medicine, Sweden is absolutely at the top. A national structure is also being developed now for a broad implementation so that this can reach the large groups. It shall not be concentrated to our six healthcare regions, but there shall be a structure that makes the best and latest treatment available for patients all over the country, regardless of whether one happens to live near a university hospital or not.
This is just one area where this is happening. In more and more medical fields, knowledge support and national guidelines are being developed. Socialstyrelsen has received an explicit mandate to work much more operationally close. It is also a way to strengthen the structures for spreading innovation and the progress being made out in the regions. It is like this: As Swedish healthcare is organized, it risks becoming fragmented. Development risks getting stuck in one region and not being spread and reaching all patients.
The lack of equitable care in Sweden is one of our major challenges. Therefore, the government has chosen to work in new ways to provide clearer governance and guidance to healthcare, both to the profession and to patients in the form of clearer information. Socialstyrelsen shall also work closely with each region in the distribution of state grants to better be able to spread innovation and good examples between the regions.
Karin Sundin (S)
Mr. Speaker! This debate can be difficult to navigate if one does not have the difference between research and innovation clear in mind. They are not quite the same thing.
Research is about a systematic work to produce new knowledge. One uses different scientific methods and works within different scientific disciplines.
Innovation is in some ways something much broader. It is new solutions that respond to an identified problem. The value arises only when the innovation is implemented. It can be a new process. It can be a new method. It can be a service. It can also absolutely be a result of research and development.
But it can also be the result of two colleagues – it could be two doctors or two nursing assistants – discussing their way to a solution to a common problem and implementing that solution. It can be the result of a patient asking why the healthcare staff is doing this when it would be much better for the patient to do something else. It can be a logistics solution that is used in the retail trade but which, if changed, could solve a logistics problem at a hospital.
This is something other than research and development. It is truly close to healthcare, and it is there somewhere that we need to consider how we can give more power to Swedish healthcare to be able to carry out these types of operationally-oriented changes.
Just as the Minister for Health and Social Affairs points out, Sweden ranks high as an innovation country. The fact is, however, that healthcare is quite poor at translating innovations into practical operations. Just as the Minister also says, we have a fragmented healthcare system, and it is unclear who actually has the responsibility – and what are we to do about it?
There are very many good examples of how one can work structurally with innovation in healthcare. All university cities, I believe, have innovation offices where collaboration occurs between different actors and operations. In Region Östergötland, they collaborate around an annual innovation fair. In Västra Götalandsregionen, which I know the Minister for Health is well acquainted with, one gets truly close to the operations through the structured innovation process they have, which provides support to employees who have an idea that they could apply for a patent for. This includes both coaching and legal advice if needed.
So, there are very many good examples of how one can ensure that operationally relevant innovations become a reality. But it fails in national structures, and it fails in overall responsibility.
The National Board of Health and Welfare, in its strategy for innovations in healthcare, has pointed out precisely this lack of structure and overall responsibility as a decisive obstacle to increased innovative power. What is being done about that? The answer to that question cannot be, I think, that one should continue working within the deficient structures we have.
What does the Minister for Health and Social Affairs think about that? What should we do about the deficient structures?
Sjukvårdsministern Elisabet Lann (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Innovation requires space to be tested in operations. I perceive that the interpellor and I are in complete agreement on that, even if it sounds from the interpellor as if I do not understand the difference between research and innovation. I do, and I have also in my answers touched upon both parts.
Operationally-oriented innovation requires air in the system, the opportunity to devote oneself to innovation, and structures to be able to try and test innovations in one's operations. The interpellor mentioned several good examples, Mr. Speaker, of how collegial cooperation and patient meetings can contribute to innovation. It is extremely important that there is space in schedules and in operations to work innovatively.
When it comes to structures for spreading this, they are required both within the operations and within the regions. Here, Mr. Speaker, several good examples were also raised of how one notices innovations. There are trade unions that have award ceremonies for good innovations. It can be about fairly low-hanging fruit and simple measures that significantly facilitate and secure healthcare. This should truly be promoted and stimulated.
When it comes to the national structure, the efficiency delegation is an example of a new structure that the government has taken the initiative for, where one can obtain funds to develop and test innovations within healthcare. There we have an example.
I return to the fact that with the organization of care we have, with 21 principals who manage and lead their regions in somewhat different ways – these are also quite complex operations in sometimes quite large regions – it is difficult to find a national structure that takes care of all innovation on the ground. Each region and each operation must also take responsibility for leading and managing their operations so that there is room to develop the operation and also structures to share the development further.
I mean again that by Socialstyrelsen having received an explicit mandate to work much more operationally close, we have also improved the conditions for spreading good examples between regions.
Karin Sundin (S)
Mr. Speaker! I think that the lack of innovative power or the potential to develop it in Swedish healthcare is naturally not something we can solve in an interpellation debate, but I appreciate that the Minister thinks the issue is urgent. I also note that the Minister thinks it is important to have enough air in the system so that there is room to work with this. That naturally also requires resources.
I can also state that we are not alone in thinking that this issue is important. I dare say that all of the country's 21 healthcare regions consider the issue to be pressing.
Sweden's seven university hospital regions have, with the support of Swelife and Vinnova, for several years conducted a joint development project for faster implementation of innovation in Swedish health and medical care. The project is abbreviated SIISH. Now that the project has reached its goal, the university hospital regions state that more political measures are needed in order to be able to achieve a more innovative and sustainable healthcare system.
The regions argue that legislation is needed. The Health and Medical Services Act currently regulates in what way regions and municipalities shall provide healthcare and that they shall also contribute to research to drive the development of healthcare forward. The law should also contain a clear mandate regarding innovations.
Furthermore, funding for the innovation work was needed. It is something other than funds for education and research. It is something other than a life science strategy.
The life science strategy that the government has presented also needs to be concretized in regional goals and plans. This requires a national mandate.
There were three clear proposals regarding increased national governance to strengthen the innovative power in Swedish healthcare that are welcomed by the country's healthcare regions. I think those are proposals that should suit a Minister for Health who, in other contexts, argues that the major problem for Swedish healthcare is too little national governance and state governance.
Sjukvårdsministern Elisabet Lann (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I return to the fact that the efficiency delegation is an example of how one can apply for funds to spread innovation and develop healthcare and make it more efficient to meet the challenges of the future. There are grants to apply for, and there one can receive funds to do this.
In the Socialstyrelsen's updated strategy to enable and contribute to responsible innovation within health care, social services, and dental care, it is stated that they shall create conditions to support the implementation of innovation among their target groups. They also state that they shall follow up, map, and evaluate the development of innovation among the target groups. It is a work that is ongoing.
Mr. Speaker! I share the interpellant's view that this is crucial for how Swedish healthcare will manage the development and future needs with the demographic development we have. The work is ongoing, and I am pleased that we agree that it is important. That makes me hope that it will continue for a long time to come, because that is what we will need.
I would like to thank you for an important discussion and take the opportunity to wish both the Speaker and the interpellor a Merry Christmas and a pleasant break.
(KARIN SUNDIN (S): Merry Christmas!)
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.