Response to interpellation 2025/26:447 on the removal of the compensation for high sick pay costs

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! Patrik Lundqvist has asked the Minister for Energy and Business whether she intends to review the effects of the savings from the abolition of the compensation for high sick pay costs on the willingness of small and medium-sized enterprises to hire, and whether she is prepared to review the issue in order to reduce the risk for small companies specifically regarding sick pay costs.

The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.

The compensation for high sick pay costs was abolished on July 1, 2024. There were several good reasons for it, and an overwhelming majority in the Riksdag, including the Social Democrats, voted for the abolition.

The economic situation weighed on the public finances during a time when there was a need to prioritize combating inflation and managing its effects by supporting households and welfare. Defense and the justice system also required significant supplements to make Sweden safer.

The government's economic policy has contributed to a recovery in the Swedish economy during 2025. Our long-term responsible economic policy yields results and higher growth. The government has taken a number of measures to ensure that it is easy to start, run, and develop companies in Sweden. At the same time, the uncertainty in the world economy remains great during 2026, particularly due to the war in the Middle East. In this situation, it is important that public funds are used as effectively as possible.

Compensation for high sick pay costs meant that parts of the employer's responsibility in the sickness insurance were shifted to the state. The relatively high compensation levels that applied to smaller employers weakened the incentives for preventive work environment measures, early rehabilitation interventions, and adaptation of work in the case of ill health.

The compensation also brought about other negative consequences. During the period the regulations were in force, the number of companies utilizing the opportunity for compensation increased significantly, and the amounts paid out became considerably higher. At the introduction in 2015, the costs were estimated at around 300 million kronor per year. In connection with the abolition in 2024, the annual expenditures on the appropriation were calculated to amount to 2.6 billion.

The high utilization meant that the negative consequences associated with the compensation received a greater significance than was assumed to be the case when the compensation was introduced. This applies in particular to the risk of incorrect payments as a result of the limited possibilities for control.

The compensation for high sick pay costs was calculated at the time of abolition to constitute approximately 5 percent of employers' total sick pay costs. The sick pay cost constitutes a limited risk for employers while the state takes over the primary responsibility in cases of longer sick leave through, among other things, the sickness benefit. Together with the individual's deductible in the form of a waiting period (karens), this is, in the government's opinion, a well-balanced distribution of responsibility with the correct incentive structure.

Patrik Lundqvist argues that the risk of high sick pay costs hampers growth in individual companies and thereby Sweden as a whole. This is, according to him, an explanation for why Sweden has shown poorer growth than Europe during this government.

Next year, Madam Speaker, Sweden will have among the best growth rates in the EU according to the EU Commission. The differences in growth between Sweden and the EU are primarily explained by the economic cycle, interest rate sensitivity, and industrial structure, not by a single reform within the health insurance area.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. The question was, as said, directed to another Minister because it concerns, at least in my world, business policy more than health insurance. But now we are here.

It is true that changes were made to the system in 2015, but it was actually introduced in 2010 by the Alliance government. But that is perhaps a parenthesis.

That this raises the sick pay costs for the state can hardly be said to be part of the problem, since the whole purpose is to have a different distribution of the costs.

Most short-term sick leaves are due to infections such as colds or influenza, stomach illnesses, and in third place, mental ill-health. Of these reasons, it is probably only the third, mental ill-health, that can be attributed to the employers' responsibility for the work environment. The others are hardly something that small companies can influence particularly much.

At the same time, it is the case that we are affected to different degrees by these types of diseases throughout life. Those who are most affected are young, perhaps largely because one has small children at home, which naturally leads to some sick leave but also to personal illness. Then it subsides as one gets older, to perhaps increase somewhat again when one begins to approach retirement.

People in different occupations are also affected differently. People with heavier physical jobs or jobs involving contact, for example within trade, are affected more by short-term sick leaves than others.

Therefore, it is also fully reasonable, Madam Speaker, that we have a system to distribute the costs for these types of diseases between companies, individuals, and the state. It is a type of collective insurance, where we redistribute the costs and adjust them according to different parts of life and different needs that most of us have. In the specific case, we redistribute from companies that risk more due to their structure with few employees, the age of those they hire, and the industry the company operates in.

During the debate in connection with this being abolished, it was stated from the government side that it was only about 13,000 kronor per employee, on average. So, one can certainly say that. But it is also what the system with an insurance against high sick pay costs aims for: to level out the costs between the companies so that the one who has four employees is not hit extra hard if one of them is sick a little more often during a period.

To reintroduce such a system is now in our budget motion for 2026, and I hope that it becomes a reality – just as several of the referral bodies, who protested when this was removed, for example Svenskt Näringsliv, Företagarna, Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund, LO with several others.

What should be done instead is to improve the control of the payments, perhaps via the Payment Authority, which has this as its purpose, because there were actually problems with the old system. This was pointed out, among other things, in a National Audit Office report. But then one should improve instead of removing.

Another improvement that should be made in parallel with this is to abolish the karens deduction. Exactly as a replacement for high sick pay costs, a solidarity insurance that gives people better conditions to plan their finances would be a good step forward towards a better Sweden. If we both introduce a system for compensation and abolish the karens, we protect those who work and the small companies and strike a blow for Swedish growth.

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

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! One can start by asking the question: If it is such a good idea to have this in operation, why did the Social Democrats participate in abolishing it when it was being phased out before 2024? Another question, if one thinks this is so important and so good, is: Why on earth has it not been financed in its budget? You have thus added 500 million kronor for a reform that cost 2.6 billion at the time of its abolition. It is hardly a reintroduction of what you participated in abolishing, but rather just a half-measure and a chimera here during election times.

The Speaker also indirectly raises another important issue, namely the one of how we are to create growth in Sweden, not least among small and medium-sized enterprises. The government's long-term responsible economic policy yields results and also higher growth. Just as I said earlier, Sweden will have a growth rate next year that will be among the highest in the EU, according to the EU Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I must nevertheless point out that it is somewhat ironic of the Social Democrats to criticize the government for the responsibility for sick pay, when they themselves are now proposing an abolished waiting period. It is a proposal that Sweden has tried before, in the 80s, and we know what the result of all that was. It resulted in more sick leaves and a dramatic increase in sick pay costs, but worst of all: the elderly had to wait longer for care and nursing because there was a lack of staff. And bus routes were cut because there were simply no bus drivers. It was expensive, and now an expensive and irresponsible proposal is being repeated.

One might think that the 80s are a long time ago, but one does not have to go very far to see the consequences of a scrapped quarantine deduction in practice today. It is enough to cross the border to Norway, which has no quarantine deduction. Norwegians are actually the world's healthiest people, but Norway also has the Western world's highest sickness absence rates. Companies in the same industry and with the same operations in Sweden and Norway have higher sickness absence at their Norwegian workplaces than at the Swedish ones, despite the same work being performed. When it concerns Swedes who have worked in Sweden for a longer period and move to Norway to work, one sees exactly the same tendency: sickness absence increases. This applies to both manual jobs and white-collar jobs.

As late as last year, at about this time, Magdalena Andersson said that the abolition of the care deduction would cost the state at least 5 billion kronor. At the same time, there are calculations showing that it would rather cost between 20 and 40 billion kronor. Despite this, the Social Democrats, just as I said earlier, in their budget motion have only included 500 million kronor to reintroduce the sick pay responsibility, which we are discussing today, which actually cost 2.6 billion when it was abolished. One has, therefore, not budgeted for these reforms at all.

Then one has to ask the question: Who is it that is supposed to pay? Is it the small and medium-sized companies or, for that matter, the large companies in Sweden that are supposed to take the hit when you promise dearly but do not finance it at all?

Madam Speaker! With all due respect: One was involved in abolishing the sick pay responsibility; now one wants to introduce it. This is not being financed at all. One says to be protecting Sweden's companies, but in reality, one is preparing a proper slap in the face that definitely will not increase growth.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! One can, of course, have different views on how important small businesses are for the Swedish economy and growth. Here it sounds as if it does not matter what is done for the small businesses and when it comes to their risks regarding sick leave.

In our budget, we have 500 million for this purpose. It is absolutely true that it is not enough to cover the entire cost of this when it was removed. But it is also true, as I stated earlier, that there are improvements to be made in the system so that it becomes more accurate and so that we have better control over the payments – two things that will make it possible to cost less.

It is still a bit strange, Madam Speaker, that a Moderate-led government chooses to shift the costs onto the companies in the way that has been done, and that I, as a Social Democrat, stand here defending this system – because it actually leads to problems when it is removed.

As said: Develop, do not phase out, would have been a good model for both Swedish companies and Swedish growth, Madam Speaker. I believe that precisely all referral bodies stated this when this was removed. We also stated it in the debate. But I understand that the Minister does not want to talk about the debate in connection with it being removed, but would rather just look at the voting result.

The question does not actually concern the small companies' contribution to the Swedish economy today, but rather the potential. If we can help companies feel a bit more secure in hiring one more, growing, creating more jobs and contributing to lowering unemployment, this has effects on the whole.

Small companies are usually praised by most. Sometimes they are even called the engine of the Swedish economy. Even though I am personally convinced that it is the large export industries that are the engine of the Swedish economy, the small companies have a very important role. They deserve to grow on their own merits and not be disrupted by the fact that they happen to recruit someone who becomes ill very often.

There, apparently, is a rift between this government and the Social Democrats. We want everyone to succeed and are prepared to do what we can to increase growth, while simultaneously increasing security for both small businesses and for individuals.

It may be about the career deduction for people in vulnerable occupations or about entrepreneurs who are torn between hiring or not hiring – we believe that society should be there. We shall help when we can and together insure ourselves against what we cannot influence so that everyone can have it as good as possible – for more people in work, for more security and for more growth.

One can also observe that the waiting period deduction and the deductible in Swedish health insurance involve double deductions, unlike how it is in many other countries. We first have a waiting period deduction, and then one receives 80 percent of the salary. It is a double deductible. In other countries, which the minister did not mention, for example Germany, one has no deductible at all. That also works.

It is therefore possible to build systems that benefit individuals, people, and society and ensure that no one needs to go to work while sick and risk infecting others or take risks because they have chosen a profession where there are other people. I believe it is high time that we actually deliver on this, to the Swedish people and for the small business owners' opportunities to hire.

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

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! It is unfortunately not serious. With fine words, one describes what one would like to do and says that it is better to listen to the debate instead of looking so closely at how we actually vote. It is not serious, Madam Speaker! This is about rules that are truly important and about our attitude towards, above all, our small businesses.

Here stands a Social Democrat in the speaker's chair claiming that they protect small businesses. He says that they want to reintroduce the sick pay responsibility and that they actually were not involved in the abolition, which at the time cost 2.6 billion. Now they are adding 500 million kronor and want to turn back the clock and pretend that they are for this.

That is not correct. It will not be enough. If, in addition, one proceeds with their proposal to abolish the care deduction, which according to the own prime ministerial candidate Magdalena Andersson's calculations would cost at least 5 billion, one is up to 8 billion in the Social Democrats' budget that lacks coverage.

One can look at other calculations, which have concluded that it would cost up to 20–40 billion. Then we must ask ourselves: Who is it that is going to pay? If it is not the state or the individual who is going to pay, who is it then? Then it is, therefore, our hard-working entrepreneurs it is about.

Then it is quite a slap in the face to stand here in the speaker's chair and say that one stands on the side of the small business owners. You are preparing a proper slap in the face for them, because you have not financed your proposals. It is this, Madam Speaker, that I object to.

From the government's side, we have been very clear that we are taking other measures to strengthen small business owners, to keep the wheels turning, to get growth started and to ensure that the companies can grow and expand instead.

The extensive sick leave can, just as the member says, become unreasonably burdensome, given that one might happen to hire someone who has an illness that flares up and is therefore away for a long time. In that case, one has a great responsibility for the employee. But then there is also the special high-risk protection. In short, it means that when an employee is likely to be ill more than ten times a year or risks having one or more long periods of illness, there is a protection for both the employer and the individual. Persons who have received activity compensation are also covered by the special high-risk protection. In that case, the state compensates the employer for the entire sick pay cost, and the employer avoids the waiting period deduction in case of illness. This reduces the employer's costs in the event of high sick leave, and it also improves the situation on the labor market for those who have or are otherwise expected to have high sick leave, for example due to chronic illness or disability.

There were several good reasons for the abolition of the compensation for high sick pay costs. I want to particularly emphasize here the risk of incorrect payments as a result of the limited control possibilities. It can also be noted that Försäkringskassan, in an analysis, estimated that more than half of the cases regarding these benefits could contain errors that resulted in incorrectly paid amounts.

An overwhelming majority in the Riksdag also voted for the abolition, among others the interpellator himself. No major disagreement in that matter seemed to exist between us two, in any case not on that particular day.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! It was because there were things to be done.

So we are now down to the fact that it would have cost 1.3 billion if what the minister just mentioned, i.e., that half would be incorrect, was actually rectified. That is something one can reflect on.

I think it is a bit absurd to call it a slap in the face to the companies to take over part of their sick pay responsibility. It is a strange way of expressing oneself, I must say. Just today, the Finance Minister spoke about the importance of Sweden getting more companies and investments, in contrast to the Liberals' somewhat strange statement that Sweden needs more billionaires.

I naturally agree with the Minister for Finance that Sweden benefits from more companies than more billionaires. It is clear that resources must be allocated so that more people can work and that more companies can grow. But there is something that grates here. I am speaking of the fact that this government – and for that matter also previous right-wing governments – despite fine words, always prioritizes precisely those who already have very much instead of those who might need a little bit to do much more. The billionaires are prioritized over those who work, regardless of whether they are employees or if they happen to run their own company. They may have a few employees but are still working in the company.

It may be difficult to determine how great an importance the risk we are talking about tonight has for small businesses to dare to hire and grow. But it results in more than several billion in reduced employer contributions for young people, for example. The reduced employer contribution goes primarily to large companies that will not hire more.

We must dare to direct efforts toward creating safer companies that dare to aim for the future. That is the purpose of this compensation.

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

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not think that one needs to exclude the other. I think that Sweden should have more billionaires, not fewer, who can invest in small and medium-sized companies and new startups with a lot of innovation and forward-looking industry that can create more and growing jobs in Sweden. For me, one does not need to exclude the other.

The tragic thing about all this is that one would rather tax people who work. One chooses to deliver blows in the form of an abolished earned income tax credit against hard-working entrepreneurs all over Sweden because one cannot manage to balance its own budget and finance the reforms it is running on a platform. That is what I think is tragic. It risks both misleading voters and deceiving the country's entrepreneurs, even though one gives the appearance of standing on their side.

Regardless of whether this reform would cost 2 or 3 billion, we can state that the Social Democrats have only put in 500 million for an expanded sick pay responsibility. At the abolition, it cost 2.6 billion. Add to that an abolished quarantine deduction. That is what I called a heavy blow to the country's entrepreneurs because it is they who will pay when you have promised it away.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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