Response to interpellation 2025/26:517 on dental care for young people
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the previous age limit did not correspond with the principle that those with the greatest need should be given priority 1. KD claims that the change is necessary for the public dental care to function better 2 and that it is well-considered to prioritize capacity 2. KD emphasizes that a double general dental care subsidy is added to mitigate the economic consequences 2 3 4. S argues that the government has severely worsened the conditions for good dental health for young people 5. S claims that the removal of free dental care creates inequality in health 6 7 and that young people who are struggling financially risk being left out of care 6. S wants to reintroduce the free dental care for the group 20–23 years 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Jim Svensk Larm has asked me what consequences the government assesses the lowered maximum age for free dental care will have for the number of young patients. He has also asked whether I intend to take any action to improve the dental health of those who have been in the age group 20–23 and have not visited a dentist as a result of the lowered age limit.
I would like to begin by thanking Jim Svensk Larm for his commitment regarding dental care for young people. Pleasantly enough, oral health among children in Sweden is generally good, and it is also continuously improving. During 2024, the proportion of caries-free children increased in all examined age groups. The same applied among the 23-year-olds. Therefore, the previous age limit for free dental care was not in accordance with the principle that those with the greatest need should be given priority to dental care.
Since more than 85 percent of children's dental care is performed by Folktandvården, the high age limit also contributed to increasing the regions' commitment in a way that caused displacement effects and capacity shortages, as well as worsened their conditions to offer dental care to patients with greater needs.
The lowered maximum age for free children's dental care means that young people need to pay a cost for their own dental care. To mitigate the consequences for the affected patient group, a double general dental allowance, ATB, of 600 kronor annually was therefore introduced at the same time.
It is expected that the regions' statistics show that visits in the age group have decreased. The visits should be viewed in relation to the needs. The regions are accustomed to ensuring that young adults leave the children's dental care orally healthy, and they are therefore called during the final free year to receive the dental care they need. We are not aware of whether any comparison has been made with Försäkringskassan's database regarding whether they have instead started going to private providers.
From the National Board of Health and Welfare's national guidelines for dental care, it appears that it is essential that both children and adults visit dental care for a basic examination as often as needed – but not more often. Generally speaking, young adults run a low risk of poor oral health, which according to the National Board of Health and Welfare's national guidelines for dental care means a revision interval of two to three years.
The age limit for children's dental care was lowered in January 2025. This was announced well in advance of the reduction. This means that these patients are presumed to have received an examination and, if necessary, treatment during the latter part of 2024 and thus, from a general perspective, will not need to be called by the dental care again until the latter part of 2026 or 2027. That the statistics show a reduced number of young people within adult dental care is therefore nothing remarkable at this stage.
When these patients visit dental care during 2026, they have 1,200 kronor in ATB. That covers the lion's share of the 1,500 kronor which is the average cost for a visit for this age group.
Jim Svensk Larm (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Minister for Social Affairs Jakob Forssmed for the answer to the interpellation.
The Minister for Health points out in his response that there is usually no need for visits to the dentist more often than approximately every second or third year, according to the National Board of Health and Welfare's recommendations. The Minister for Health also wants to make it sound as if it is not remarkable that visits by this age group have decreased. I share the opinion that it is not surprising. It is quite logical that fewer people go to the dentist when costs increase.
Mr. Speaker, let us stop and reflect a little on what this means in practice. For a 20–23-year-old, a dental visit can cost several hundred, perhaps even several thousand kronor. For someone with a steady income, this can be manageable, but for the student, the unemployed, or the person with an insecure job, it is something completely different. These are people who already today are forced to prioritize between basic things in everyday life, such as rent, food, and public transport. Then it is not difficult to understand what happens when dental care begins to cost. One waits. One postpones the visit. In the end, one perhaps does not go at all.
It is precisely this development we are now seeing, but it is something the government has chosen to ignore. I find this remarkable. The government has implemented this reform and thereby significantly worsened the conditions for good dental health for those who are now in the age group of 20–23 years. It is also about their future health. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there is a great risk that dental health will deteriorate for those who have now been deprived of free dental care. In many other areas, preventive measures are often discussed as the most important measure to prevent future problems. The same is true regarding good dental health.
Even though, according to the Minister for Social Affairs' reasoning, it can be pointed out that one receives a higher dental care subsidy, not everyone will be able to afford to go to the dentist during this year. In 2025, 75 percent fewer young people went to the dentist in Västmanland, according to news I received prior to this debate. At the same time, we have high youth unemployment, which means that many have difficulty making their money stretch to cover the most essential needs.
I do not believe that the Minister for Social Affairs is correct in their analysis that it is only a temporary dip in the first year, but I believe that the deterioration will lead to even fewer people going to the dentist at this age. It will affect their dental health even in the long run. The risk is simply that they will have even worse dental health at an older age, which entails greater costs at future dental visits.
Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Social Affairs speaks of it being a matter of prioritization. I do not quite feel that the SD government has prioritized this issue; rather, they have prioritized something else entirely, namely themselves. If they had prioritized based on need, they would not have borrowed 200,000 kronor a minute to lower the tax for themselves and their colleagues while simultaneously having a non-existent labor market policy that results in high unemployment and causes many young people to have difficulty affording dental visits. Now, they have also removed the free dental care for them between the ages of 20 and 23. Politics is about priorities, and the priorities that the government makes risk creating problems that will make it both more expensive and more difficult in the future.
Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister for Social Affairs if he considers that the government has taken into account that many young people risk having worsened future dental health as a result of the decision to remove the free dental care for them between the ages of 20 and 23. What does the Minister for Social Affairs want to say to those who cannot afford to visit the dentist as a result of lacking work due to the government's failed labor market policy?
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! On January 1 of this year, the government lowered the age limit for free dental care from 23 to 19 years. We see the consequence already now: the number of young people going to the dentist has decreased significantly. For many between 20 and 23 years old, the cost simply becomes another obstacle in an already pressured everyday life, and that is exactly the problem.
This government has time and again made decisions that make life harder for young people. Young people today face a record-high youth unemployment. Many seek job after job without gaining a foothold in the labor market. At the same time, the housing market is almost closed. Getting a first-hand contract is for many a distant dream, and those who try to buy their first home are met with high thresholds. The queues for support regarding mental ill-health are long. Far too many young people have to wait months for help, or even years, when they feel at their worst. At the same time, surveys show that faith in the future among young people is faltering. They feel anxiety about their finances, their housing situation, and their opportunities to build a secure adult life. In that situation, the government chooses to remove free dental care for this group.
The Minister for Social Affairs might think that this is an exaggeration. It is not. I meet very many young people who feel that this is part of the government not investing in the young, but rather removing what was previously at least an opportunity.
Mr. Speaker! Dental health is not a luxury but a part of basic health. We know that preventive measures early in life reduce the risk of suffering from major problems later. This applies not only to health in general but, of course, also to dental health.
We know that economic barriers lead to people postponing the care they actually need. Some must choose between food and medicine. Some choose between buying food, paying the rent, and going to the dentist. Therefore, this issue is not just about teeth but also about equality, about priorities, and about what message we send to young people. The message from the government seems to be: "You can manage on your own." But young people deserve better than that. They deserve a policy that invests in their future, provides opportunities for work and housing, shortens the queues for support for mental ill-health, and provides the opportunity to build good dental health for the rest of their lives.
The Minister for Social Affairs says in his response that dental care shall continue to be good. Yes, but we have good dental health because many of us have had the opportunity to go to dental care early – to the public dental clinic or somewhere else. It has also not been a financial question whether one should continue – or start – going to the dentist regularly. That is why this is a tough decision. Is the Minister for Social Affairs prepared to reconsider that decision?
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Social Affairs for the answer to the interpellation.
I have been politically active since 2010, when I was 16 years old. There have been several election campaigns since then. I meet a lot of young people at high schools, here in the Riksdag, at home in Skåne, and in other contexts. In this election campaign, I notice when I meet young people that they experience much greater material anxiety than has been the case previously. In some election campaigns, young people may have focused primarily on the climate issue. In one election campaign or another, there has been a lot about gender equality policy. But in this election campaign, I experience in a way that I actually cannot remember that people are worried about their economic situation.
This observation is reinforced by reports coming from various sources. For example, LO has released a report where it is described that every third young person is worried about their personal finances. As a young person in this country, one has a gloomy picture of the future. One has rather small prospects for the future and is concerned about what one's future will be like.
Swedbank released a report a few months ago stating that eight out of ten young people aged 18–29 are worried about their personal finances. This is noticeable both in the conversations one has when standing on streets and squares and when visiting schools.
We also, as several of my colleagues here have mentioned, have a situation where we have high youth unemployment. People are worried about whether they can get a job or not. They are worried about the transition that is occurring with artificial intelligence. They are worried about their housing situation. On top of this, the change in dental care in Sweden has come from the government.
One can have arguments about priorities and that one should prioritize other age groups. One can pit age group against age group if one wants to do so. This is done in a situation where one receives reports from different sources that young people are concerned about their personal finances.
It is clear that one can say that young people do not have the same healthcare needs as older people when it comes to dental care. That is very possible. It is also the case that people have good dental health in this country because one has had a generous policy when it came to young people's dental care.
The risk is that just the threat of receiving a high dental bill makes young people avoid going to the dentist. This can cause dental health to deteriorate, in addition to the fact that young people in this country are very worried about the future and their personal finances.
I hope that in the next contribution I will receive some kind of explanation from the Minister regarding how the government has reasoned. Earlier today, we made decisions on support for households in this country and support for airlines so that they can cover their costs. But this group does not receive that type of support. Instead, they receive a change when it comes to dental care.
I would like to hear more about how the government reasons in that specific issue. It cannot be a secret for the government that young people feel anxiety about the future, their personal finances, and also the skyrocketing costs. Why has it been chosen to carry out this change in dental care just now? That is my question to the minister.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Mr. Speaker! It is with growing astonishment that I take note of the remarks. If one wants to discuss state debt policy, labor market policy, or policy regarding the housing market, aviation, or whatever it is, one has every opportunity to call here the ministers who are responsible for that. This debate is about dental care.
We are doing a lot in those areas, not least privately, where households now receive substantial reinforcements in the form of both reduced food VAT and reduced tax. I am glad that we, for example, are lowering the tax for people with sickness and activity benefits who have had it very tough for a long time.
If we are to speak about dental care, we are making the biggest improvements ever for elderly people. They write to me and are shocked. They cannot believe it is true that for the first time in 15 years they can go to the dentist, get the care they need, and then look at the receipt and wonder if it is true. It is because we have invested 4 billion so that those with the worst oral health shall have the opportunity to go to the dentist, which they can now do.
I am also surprised that the Social Democrats themselves have not reviewed the situation. It surprises me. Sometimes there are streaks of seriousness within the Social Democrats, but it is not expressed here.
What does the Swedish Dental Association say? They approached me. They have surely approached your ministers as well before me and said that it is harmful to Swedish dental care. It drains dental care of resources. It means that those with greater needs cannot get appointments. It means that the public dental care does not function well enough. We need to change this.
You do not need to listen to them. You can listen to the regions. They welcome this in their referral responses. In Region Örebro län, they were absent in the 20–23 year age group in 37 percent of the cases. They did not show up on time. Teams with dentists and dental care staff were ready and waiting for them to show up, but they did not come. In the group up to 19 years, it was 4 percent, and then the figure increased up to 37 percent. It was a full 37 percent of the visits to the dental clinic that were empty.
You do not need to listen to them. You can listen to the Social Democrat Veronica Palm who investigated dental care after the principle of need. Dental care in Sweden must be given more according to need. It is an old Social Democratic stronghold. We shall give things according to need. What did she conclude? This is not according to need, but it should be removed. The Social Democrat Veronica Palm stated this.
One can have the impression that everything should be free for everyone, and then one can hope that the capacity within dental care is sufficient. But now, reality is not arranged in that way.
Then one needs to consider: How do we ensure that dental care is provided more according to need than before? That is what we have done. This is not an economic issue. It is a capacity issue. How are we to use the dental care resources so that it reaches those with the greatest needs?
This group is not being left behind. They receive double the general dental care subsidy, which covers large parts of their examination. But they will no longer be part of the free children's dental care. That is the change.
There are many issues where one can have different opinions and where there are very strong arguments against. This is not such an issue. If one follows the material that is here, it is a rather given conclusion.
That is also why we compensate with an increased general dental care allowance. It is reasonable that the visits are thinned out for that group, especially as one's dental care is met during the final year of free children's dental care.
This is well-considered and reasonable. That is what almost every referral body says. One can have a different opinion. But then one must also answer the question: How shall we ensure that the capacity is sufficient for those with needs? The Social Democrats cannot.
Jim Svensk Larm (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Social Affairs for the answer, even though I do not feel that I have been made calmer or more certain that the government has prioritized correctly.
The Minister for Social Affairs speaks about how it is not a labor market policy debate and so on. But it is clear that it has an impact. The debate is about those in the age group 20–23 years who can no longer go to the dentist under the same conditions as before.
In my first speech, I highlighted the economic part. I will go into a bit more on the consequences. Dental health does not function as something that one can just make up later. When one postpones a visit, it is rarely about the problems disappearing, but rather about them growing.
A small hole becomes larger. A beginning inflammation becomes worse. What could have been a simple and cheap measure instead becomes an extensive and expensive treatment. We know that. We have seen it time and again.
That is why Sweden has chosen to invest in preventive measures and preventive dental care for young people. The government is breaking that line.
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Social Affairs refers to the higher dental care allowance. But in reality, it is not enough for every young person who turns over every krona. An allowance that does not cover the cost does not help the one who cannot afford to pay the rest.
The choice for many young people is simply between going to the dentist and not making the finances work out in the end. For many young people, the reality is exactly that. This applies especially in a time where there is high youth unemployment, as we have heard here. It is insecure employment and high living costs.
Let us be clear. Not all young people are affected equally. Those who have parents with a good economy or who perhaps themselves have secure and larger incomes will still be able to get to the dentist. But those who are already struggling risk being left behind. That is how inequality in health emerges.
We Social Democrats believe in a society that holds together, where we do not build in new divides in welfare and where we do not accept that health becomes a class issue. Dental care has long been an area where inequality is clear. Precisely for that reason, we should move in the direction of strengthening accessibility and not weakening it.
When the government removes the free dental care for young adults, it sends a clear signal. This group is expected to manage on its own. It is precisely in the transition between youth and adulthood that one might need society's support to a somewhat greater extent.
It is about studies, establishing oneself on the labor market, and building one's future. In the midst of that, one should have to bear their own costs for dental health.
Madam Speaker! I also want to highlight the long-term perspective. It is not just a question of today's savings in the state budget. It is a question of future costs both for the individual and for society.
As the minister points out here, there is of course a shortage of staff and all that. But if the young people do not get good dental health, it will have an impact in the future.
Poorer dental health does not only lead to suffering and increased healthcare costs, but it also affects people's opportunities in life, to get a job, feel security, and participate fully in society. It is about being able to give a smile to someone you meet. Investing in young people's dental health is therefore not just a cost. It is an investment in a more equal and stronger society.
I want to repeat the core of the criticism. The government's reform risks increasing inequality, worsening preventive care, and actually leading to higher costs in the long run, but poorer dental health.
I do not think this is a responsible policy. It is not a policy that puts needs first in the long term. It is not a policy that builds a Sweden that holds together.
I thank you anyway for the answer and will return in my final post.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! I shall be very brief. The Minister is obviously very pleased with the reform, and that is how it should be. One is, as a minister, pleased with the reforms one has implemented – if we can even call this a reform. It is a change, a deterioration, or whatever one wants to call it.
The Minister said that this is not an economic issue. I do not know if the Minister will knock on doors or go out and campaign in student areas, but I hope that he tells the 22-year-old students he meets, who are worried about their personal finances, that this is not an economic issue.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! That claim stands for Adrian Magnusson. I naturally put this in relation to the claims that came that the government would do this for some kind of general savings reasons in order to fund other things such as tax cuts and other things. I think that Member Magnusson understood that it was that context I intended.
I wrote in my interpellation answer that it is obvious that this will have consequences for young people. That is why the government mitigates the consequences by proposing a double general dental care subsidy for these individuals – precisely to mitigate the economic consequences of a decision that is fundamentally about capacity and need in the dental care sector.
I note that the Social Democrats are standing behind our dental care reform for the elderly so that the elderly can receive dental care that some of them have not been able to receive for 10–15 years. They have never had any free and preventive dental care. They have never had these opportunities, and therefore it is right to ensure that they also have their needs met.
The Social Democrats pretend that capacity is infinite and that we can both keep the free dental care for children up to 23 years old and implement the reform for the elderly. But then they won't get any appointments! It is these displacement effects that Svensk Folktandvårdsförening and the regions have warned about. That is why we need to make these changes simultaneously. But in the Social Democrats' world, one never needs to ensure that capacity is sufficient. There, one can only say: We run everything at the same time and hope for the best!
Jim Svensk Larm (S)
Madam Speaker! I do not know what to say about the latest entry. It is not an economic prioritization, says the Minister. So perhaps it can be. But at the same time, I have heard several people talk about it being an economic prioritization when one makes this distinction.
I partly share the view that it is difficult to get an appointment in dental care. This has been experienced for a longer period. But dental health is not a luxury, it is a fundamental part of our welfare. I think it is strange that the government chooses to remove dental care for those who are 20–23 years old; it is a step backward.
For us Social Democrats, the principle is simple: Care should be given based on need, not based on wallet. In this case, it unfortunately becomes partly based on wallet. There are young people who cannot afford care. They therefore risk losing access to care, and it will, as I have said before, have an impact moving forward. Many cannot afford to spend money on dental care. The visit is postponed and the problems are ignored, and it results in poorer health in the long term.
It is simply better with preventive care. It is both cheaper and better. It is not really just about teeth, it is about equality, health, and faith in the future. Sweden shall be a country where young people are given good conditions to start their adult lives. No one should have to opt out of dental care in order to make the finances work.
We know that health inequalities begin early, and they are reinforced when the safety nets are weakened. That is why it is important for us Social Democrats to reintroduce free dental care for those who are 20–23 years old. This is an investment in equal health, in preventive work, and in a society that holds together.
I would still like to thank the Minister for Social Affairs for this debate, and I wish him a wonderful summer. Hopefully, he will be able to enjoy some sun and perhaps a book before the election campaign kicks off at the end of the summer.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! I also want to wish Jim Svensk Larm a really good summer with exactly the same things. If it is possible to also include Veronica Palm's investigation in that pile of books, I would gladly do so, because I thought it was a good analysis that emerged there.
Of course, no one should have to forgo dental care for economic reasons. I think that is a good Swedish basic principle. And of course, we must guard the excellent preventive dental care that we have. But we must also take care of our dental care system.
The Swedish Dental Association and region after region point out that our dental care resources today are not allocated according to need because we have a situation where we quite recently, just a few years ago, moved up the age limit from 19 to 23 years. Then perhaps we should consider moving the limit down; it is somewhat of a duty to do so. We did it to create capacity for those with the greater dental care needs, not least the elderly.
This is so important to me, and I am so glad that people who have now waited for dental care for 10–15 years and who have lived with pain and with severe conditions can now have this addressed. This is happening, among other things, thanks to the fact that we have made this change.
In order for the young to be able to cope with what the change entails for them, we are adding a double general dental care subsidy, which ensures that the cost remains relatively small for these visits. Then there is still a cost, if one, for example, has greater dental care needs as a young person, and in that case, the regular high-cost protection applies. This applies equally for young people as for all other people in our country.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.