Response to interpellation 2025/26:43 on private health insurance for municipal politicians
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns municipal politicians who obtain private healthcare insurance with tax money to avoid healthcare queues. S considers this a gross abuse of trust and a violation of the foundations of welfare because care should be provided based on need, not based on title 1. S argues that private insurance pushes out patients with the greatest need and that politicians should stand in the same queue as the citizens 1 2 3. KD argues that the queues are a fact after eight years of S-rule 4. KD argues that there is no evidence for displacement effects and that the most important thing is to eliminate the queues 4 5. KD argues that it is a pity that the focus is placed on those who pay twice for the care 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! Adrian Magnusson has asked me if I consider it right that municipal politicians in the country's municipalities obtain private health insurance to avoid the long healthcare queues and if I will act based on my view on the issue.
The goal of health and medical care, according to the Health and Medical Services Act (2017:30), is good health and care on equal terms for the entire population. Care shall be provided with respect for all people's equal value and the individual's dignity. The person who has the greatest need for health and medical care shall be given priority to care. These guiding principles apply to all health and medical care, and it is the primary bodies for health and medical care, which consist of regions and municipalities, that are responsible for ensuring that the legislation is followed. Elected politicians have a special responsibility to act responsibly and with good judgment. It is, however, not the government's task to comment on individual incidents in municipalities and regions.
The government has taken and will take several measures aimed at shortening the healthcare queues. I look forward to a continued constructive discussion with Adrian Magnusson on how we can shorten the queues to healthcare and strengthen accessibility for all patients in the country.
Since the interpellator reported that he was prevented from attending the meeting, the second deputy speaker granted that Anna Wallentheim (S) instead was allowed to participate in the interpellation debate.
Anna Wallentheim (S)
Madam Speaker! Today I have taken over my colleague Adrian Magnusson's important interpellation debate regarding something very serious and upsetting occurring here in Skåne. It is something that concerns the very heart of our Swedish welfare model, namely the principle that care shall be provided based on need – not based on wallet, not based on professional title, and not based on political affiliation.
In Burlöv Municipality, the Moderate-led municipal leadership has decided that senior officials and politicians shall receive private health insurance as a benefit. This is to be paid for by municipal taxpayers. This has, of course, sparked many reactions – from residents, from employees, from trade unions, from the medical profession, from the opposition and from the media but also from healthcare researchers. And, Madam Speaker, it is not difficult to understand why.
When the queues in Region Skåne are among the longest in the country, when health centers are closing and staff are pushed to their knees, they in Burlöv are instead using tax money to give themselves and their own a fast track past the queues that everyone else is forced to stand in. This is a mockery of those who live in Burlöv and who every day have to wait for healthcare. It is a mockery of those who toil in home care, in retail, and in our schools. It is ordinary people who have no other alternative than to wait for the jointly funded healthcare.
The Swedish Medical Association's delegation for medical ethics is crystal clear in its statement: Private health insurance pushes out patients with the greatest need and violates the principle of need. It is written, among other things, that the displacement effect risks leading to worsened health and even to deaths. This is not a political opinion, but it comes, therefore, from the Swedish Medical Association.
Madam Speaker! It is obviously remarkable that the politicians in Burlöv offer themselves a priority to healthcare ahead of their own citizens. I consider this to be a rather gross abuse of trust and that it is a violation of the foundations of the welfare state.
The Minister mentions in their response that it is not the government's task to comment on individual incidents in municipalities and regions. That may be so, but this raises questions far beyond Burlöv. Does the government think this is reasonable? Does the government think that local politicians should give themselves priority in healthcare that is financed with tax money?
I think the answer should be quite obvious: Everyone should be equal before healthcare, and everyone should stand in the same queue. No politician, whether in Burlöv or anywhere else in Sweden, should be able to buy a place in or make decisions about their own fast track, bypassing, for example, nurses, nursing assistants, retirees or teachers who are all standing and waiting for care.
That is why I stand here today to mark that we Social Democrats think this is wrong. If the government does not mark it, we risk opening the door for the same thing to be able to happen in more municipalities. Then we have a development where power weighs heavier than justice.
Madam Speaker! I hope that we can have a debate today where we stand up for the Swedish welfare model's most important principle, namely that care shall be given based on need, not based on title, not based on income, and definitely not based on which politicians are in power.
Sjukvårdsministern Elisabet Lann (KD)
Madam Speaker! I cannot help but think it is quite sad that the long queues are regarded as such a law of nature and so self-evident that it is upsetting that there are people who try to find ways to avoid waiting in line. The member himself expressed, Madam Speaker, that it is about pushing past the queues one is forced to stand in.
Yes, the queues have become a fact. They became a fact after eight years of S rule and S responsibility for healthcare. One of the first things the S government did at the change of government in 2014 was to remove the queue billion. Then it took until 2019 before the first investment was made to shorten the healthcare queues. During the eight years the Social Democrats were responsible for healthcare, the queues tripled.
It is the queues that drive the interest in private health insurance; otherwise, there would not have been such demands. There would have been no need for them.
The most important thing is that people receive care based on need. That is not what happens when you stand in a queue. The priority of the ethical platform always applies: It is incredibly important that the person in greatest need of care shall be given priority. That is how Swedish healthcare works. That is how Swedish healthcare should work.
But in reality, people are standing in queues and do not receive care when they need it. This is what we think is most important to address. That is why we are working so actively to shorten the queues.
I also want to touch upon the claims that it is possible to demonstrate displacement effects. An investigation has been conducted called Regulation of private health insurance – increased knowledge and control. It is stated there that they have not been able to find any reports that have specifically looked at whether private health insurance has contributed to displacement effects. One should therefore be a bit cautious with such claims.
The most important thing, however, is to eliminate the queues. Then, no politicians, nor anyone else, will have an interest in purchasing private healthcare insurance.
Anna Wallentheim (S)
Madam Speaker! I do not participate myself so often in healthcare debates, as I sit in another committee. But when one sits here in the chamber and listens to healthcare debates, it is not entirely uncommon to hear the government say at one moment that it is not the state that has responsibility for healthcare, but rather our regions. But in the next moment, when it concerns Region Skåne, where we have had right-wing rule for many years, it is suddenly the state and the Social Democratic government that are responsible for the queues.
I naturally want to thank the Minister for the answer, but I also want to make it clear to everyone listening that this is a debate that, above all, must be about the trust in the public system. That is precisely why the reactions in Burlöv have been so strong.
I want to emphasize that this is not a theoretical problem, but we are actually seeing negative consequences of this already today. When one has private health insurance, it means that resources are transferred from public care to private care, which many times has shorter queues because one can choose their patients there. This means that those with the greatest need risk ending up even further back in the queues.
Madam Speaker! When conservative politicians in Burlöv were forced to defend why they had introduced this, they explained that it would partly make the workplace less vulnerable, and partly make it more attractive to become a politician. I think this reveals something quite sad that also scares me. One forgets why we are elected.
We are not elected to arrange benefits for ourselves. We are elected to ensure that the nursing assistant working at night receives care when she needs it. We are here so that the retiree who needs to have a hip operation shall receive it. We want the one with the greatest need to actually receive care first.
Madam Speaker! In her answer, the Minister was clear that she did not want to comment on the affairs of different municipalities. That is perfectly fine with me, but my question was not about Burlöv's internal management. I asked whether the Minister thinks that the politicians' cream cakes are compatible with the principle of need that she herself highlights.
It should be very simple to answer: No, politicians shall not have priority, nor should anyone else in society. It is care based on need.
I also want to remind [everyone] how important the government's work with the healthcare queues is – I agree with that. It is important work, but it has nothing to do with this issue. Even if the queues were zero, I believe it is completely unreasonable for politicians to be able to buy their way past healthcare queues.
I want to ask again: Does the government and the minister consider that politicians with funding from tax money should be given the opportunity to bypass their own citizens in the queues? Does the government intend to regulate this so that governing politicians across the country are not given that opportunity?
Sjukvårdsministern Elisabet Lann (KD)
Madam Speaker! The government intends to get rid of the healthcare queues. It will take time, but it is unworthy of a welfare country to have healthcare queues. Our citizens pay so much in taxes that they should not have to wait in a queue to receive the care they need. If one receives care when one needs it, there is no reason to take out private health insurance. It is that simple. That is why we are putting our efforts into working to eliminate the queues. The most important thing is that one receives care when one needs it.
Regarding the crowding-out effects, that has been looked at. If people pay privately through insurance for healthcare capacity that the regions do not utilize, because they would rather have patients in the queue, it creates no crowding-out effect. In that case, it is rather that it relieves the pressure in the queues. But that is not how we want to solve the problem with the queues. We want our healthcare to function so well, efficiently, and safely that one receives the care one needs when one needs it, regardless of whether one has insurance or not.
Anna Wallentheim (S)
Madam Speaker! Earlier today, I was visited by a school class from Helsingborg. I received several questions about democracy that I have been reflecting on throughout the day. These are questions that could be summarized as follows: How can you, as elected representatives, act to increase trust in politics and in political parties? These are questions that feel quite relevant for such a debate. I believe that in a democracy, it is our mission as elected officials to serve our citizens and not provide ourselves with benefits.
I believe that we should stand in the same queues as everyone else, however sad it is that we have queues. It is clear that we shall share the queues with our citizens. We shall feel the same frustration when we do not get access to the welfare that we actually pay taxes for, and we shall work to try to solve this. I believe that what is happening is quite serious. We must never end up in a situation where we create an A-team and a B-team. This does not only apply in healthcare but in society at large, where we actually make a difference in who it is that counts.
Madam Speaker! It is even more tragic that this is happening in Skåne, because there, people are already severely affected today by the fact that we have long healthcare queues that the bourgeois government in Region Skåne has failed to shorten. It is nursing assistants, teachers, and construction workers who remain in the queues to receive care, while representatives of the same right-wing parties that have failed with healthcare in Skåne choose to buy their way past the queues they themselves have created.
It is not a fair welfare. It is not an equal healthcare. This is not what represents the democracy that I believe the people in Burlöv and the youth in Helsingborg actually deserve. We must act better than this.
Sjukvårdsministern Elisabet Lann (KD)
Madam Speaker! I hope we are nevertheless in agreement that the most important thing is that we do not have any healthcare queues and that all people should receive care when they need it. I think it is a bit of a shame that the focus is placed on whether there are people who pay twice for healthcare. Those who pay for insurance also pay tax to the publicly funded healthcare.
I think that we in Sweden can expect, with the tax burden we have, to receive the care one needs when one needs it, regardless of which salary benefits one's employer has chosen to offer to create attractiveness. It becomes a difficult mix of different subjects when we talk about salary benefits, work benefits, and publicly funded healthcare.
I thank you for the debate, and I hope we agree that no one should have to wait in a queue to receive the care they need.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.