Response to interpellations 2025/26:137 and 186 regarding clawbacks from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns clawbacks from Försäkringskassan and the design of the occupational injury insurance. M argues that the occupational injury insurance is an important part of the social insurance 1 and that the individual has a responsibility to inform about changed circumstances 1. M believes that Försäkringskassan has significant resources and room for maneuver to waive clawbacks in good faith 1 2, but argues that control is better than trust to stop benefit fraud 3. S argues that the system does not work and requires a reform 4. S believes that Försäkringskassan's handling is deficient 5 and that system errors cause brutal clawbacks 6. S argues that the system is too complex 6 7 and that the safety nets should be built on trust 7 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Jessica Rodén has asked me how I view the fact that persons with life annuities can be subject to large clawbacks despite having acted in good faith within a system with difficult-to-understand rules. Jessica Rodén has also asked me if I intend to introduce legislative changes that strengthen legal certainty in the occupational injury insurance and reduce the risk of clawbacks against the insured.
In addition, Sanne Lennström has asked me how I and the government can create the conditions for Försäkringskassan to improve the quality and legal certainty in the processing and decision-making regarding the recovery of sickness benefit and parental benefit.
Madam Speaker! The occupational injury insurance is an important part of the Swedish social insurance. The person who is injured or becomes ill from their work shall be compensated for their loss of income and not be affected financially. With the life annuity, the insured person's loss of income can be covered by in principle 100 percent up to the fixed ceiling in the occupational injury insurance. If the injured person continues to work in a job with a lower salary than they had in the job where the injury occurred, the occupational injury insurance also compensates for this loss of income, but since the compensation in many cases is high, any potential clawbacks can also become large.
Every individual person has a responsibility to inform themselves about which circumstances can affect the right to and the size of a granted compensation from the social insurance and to report changed circumstances to Försäkringskassan. Through this, individuals can reduce the risk of large clawbacks in connection with Försäkringskassan's post-controls. In connection with their application, the individual receives information from Försäkringskassan about which circumstances can affect the right to and the size of the granted life annuity.
The Social Insurance Agency's work with the processing of benefit and recovery cases is governed, among other things, by provisions in the Social Insurance Code and the Administrative Procedure Act (2017:900). According to Chapter 110, Section 13 of the Social Insurance Code, the Social Insurance Agency shall ensure that cases are investigated to the extent that their nature requires. According to Section 9 of the Administrative Procedure Act, a case shall be processed as simply, quickly, and cost-effectively as possible without compromising legal certainty. The Social Insurance Agency also has an obligation to provide relevant information to avoid incorrect payments and reduce the risk of recoveries.
I now expect Försäkringskassan to work to ensure that cases are processed in accordance with the applicable regulations, Madam Speaker. Försäkringskassan has a clear mandate from the government in this year's regulation letter, which states that the agency shall take measures to prevent individuals from becoming liable for repayment.
When incorrect payments are nevertheless made, it is important for the legitimacy of the social insurance system that they are paid back. However, Försäkringskassan has a large scope of action if the individual is judged to have acted in good faith. The reclamation may be adapted to the individual's economic and social situation and be waived in whole or in part.
To strengthen Försäkringskassan's core operations, the government proposed a large supplement to Försäkringskassan in the budget bill for 2025 (prop. 2024/25:1). Supplements have also been made to the agency in the budget bill for 2026 (prop. 2025/26:1), which means that the administrative appropriation is expected to increase in the coming years. These are the largest supplements to Försäkringskassan since the beginning of the 2010s.
In order to create conditions for fewer incorrect payments from the welfare systems, several changes have also been proposed and entered into force during the mandate period, which give decision-making authorities expanded access to data in, among other things, the employer declarations. The purpose is to ensure correct decision-making bases for control purposes. Some measures are completed, and others are under development.
It is important that the regulatory framework for clawbacks is clear, predictable, and legally secure, Madam Speaker. The Government therefore decided on March 6, 2025, to task a special investigator to investigate exactly which measures can guarantee more legally secure and effective rules for clawbacks. The assignment shall be reported by June 16, 2026, at the latest.
The government has, with this, given Försäkringskassan very good conditions to fulfill its assignments, including when it concerns the repayment activities. Through the appointed investigation, the government has also laid the foundation for more legally secure and efficient recovery of claims in the future.
Jessica Rodén (S)
Madam Speaker! The occupational injury insurance is a cornerstone of the Swedish model. It is based on a simple but fundamental idea, namely that the person who is injured in their work should not have their finances ruined but should be able to feel security. It is a promise between the state and the wage earners.
This is a promise that we Social Democrats take very seriously. It is about trust – about daring to educate oneself, take a job and go to work every day, also when it concerns heavy and sometimes dangerous jobs, in the knowledge that society is there if something happens. That is how we build security together. But today, the occupational injury insurance does not deliver what it promises, and it is not only a betrayal of the worker who has worn themselves out at work but a threat to the general welfare idea of security through work.
The number of people receiving life annuities has plummeted by 88 percent over 20 years. At the same time, people who try to do the right thing – who report their income and trust Försäkringskassan – are hit with demands for repayment of hundreds of thousands of kronor. It is clear that the system does not work in its current form.
Madam Speaker! We have been able to read about Camilla, who suffered a wear-and-tear injury in her shoulders when she was 21 years old packing hangers. She contacted Försäkringskassan herself to stop the life annuity payments when she got a new job and a changed income. Despite that, she received a reclaim of 44,000 kronor. Camilla chose to take the case to court with the help of her trade union, and it took three years before she was proven right.
We have also heard about Kurt-Åke, who, after seven years with a lifelong annuity, received a demand letter for over a quarter of a million kronor. It was not about fraud; it was about Försäkringskassan making mistakes in its calculations. With the help of LO-TCO Rättsskydd, the decision was appealed to the administrative court, which in its decision criticized Försäkringskassan's investigation and overturned the decision on the repayment demand.
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that the safety systems should be just that—safe. They should be built on trust, not suspicion. They should be legally secure, not arbitrary. They should also function for today's labor market, not yesterday's. Therefore, the occupational injury insurance needs to be reformed. We Social Democrats want to see a system that is understandable, that is based on real working conditions, and that provides support to the person who has actually been injured in their work, regardless of whether the injury is physical, mental, or caused by infection.
We need to remove the exceptions that mean many in female-dominated occupations within healthcare, school, and care never even come into consideration for compensation. We also need to introduce a fixed point in time for assessment so that people do not fall through the cracks, and we need to ensure that Försäkringskassan takes a clearer responsibility for informing and guiding people through the insurance system.
Secure people dare to take risks. They dare to change jobs, continue their studies and start companies. They dare to be involved in building Sweden stronger. Then the state must hold up its end of the bargain. How does the government view that people, despite having provided correct information, are hit by clawbacks because Försäkringskassan's internal data systems do not function?
Sanne Lennström (S)
Madam Speaker! The review that the Swedish Pensions Agency recently presented shows something very serious, namely that more than half of Försäkringskassan's recovery cases regarding sickness benefit and parental benefit contain legal deficiencies.
It concerns a total of 202 reviewed cases, and these are not small discrepancies but rather such significant deficiencies that they can lead to incorrect demands for repayment, unclear decisions, and major consequences for ordinary people who are either ill or taking care of their children. In short, we are talking about legal certainty when our citizens are in contact with Swedish authorities.
The report shows that 59 percent of the cases have at least one deficiency. For example, a justification for the decision may be missing. 22 percent contain deficiencies in substantive correctness, which means that the assessment itself is not correct or that there is simply a lack of supporting documentation. 54 percent have deficiencies in formal correctness, such as deficient justifications for why a demand for repayment is even being made.
For the sickness benefit, the situation is particularly serious; there, 74 percent of the cases have at least one legal deficiency. Regarding the parental insurance, the corresponding figure is 45 percent. Not least regarding the sickness benefit, we are talking about people who are already in a very vulnerable situation and who now risk being met with incorrect demands for repayment from the state.
ISF also describes how Försäkringskassan lacks sufficient grounds, makes assessments that are not legally substantiated, and also uses templates that result in a lack of support regarding the individual circumstances surrounding the cases. This applies particularly to the assessment of bad faith and waiver, that is, whether the parent or the sick person has acted intentionally and not just made a mistake unintentionally.
Many decisions also lack a comprehensible justification, which means that people do not even understand why they have become liable for repayment. We also see that the internal organization creates risks in the distribution of responsibility.
All of this is about legal certainty. The conclusion from ISF is that Försäkringskassan's handling of recovery claims is deficient, and in large terms, this is about the trust in the Swedish social insurance. People should not risk being hit with recovery claims of tens of thousands of kronor because the state has not done its job. Legal certainty really must not be considered negotiable.
I am fully aware that we have independent agencies in Sweden, and several of ISF's recommendations concern Försäkringskassan's internal work, organization, and routines. I also know, however, that the government has an investigation underway that is to review how the regulatory framework for clawbacks in the social insurance system can be designed in an effective way.
I read some about this on the government's website. There is a very strong focus on tackling benefit fraud, which is of course very important to maintain trust in the system and that we manage the tax money well.
The investigation is to be presented this summer. Will it also focus on the deficiencies regarding incorrect re-claims, according to the Minister's assessment at the current stage?
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! As I began by explaining, it is important that it is easy to do the right thing and that the regulatory framework for clawbacks is clear, predictable, and legally secure.
As a quick response to Sanne Lennströms direct question to me, I want to say that this is definitely part of the investigation that we have now commissioned. It is, in fact, two sides of the same coin. If we are to combat grant-related crime and ensure that it decreases, as well as ensure that our common tax money does not end up in criminals' pockets and that we can choke off the criminal economy, it is important that it is easy to do the right thing. It is a matter of the authorities sharing information with one another and that this happens automatically, so that those acting in good faith do not risk ending up in a situation where things go wrong, where they receive demands for repayment directed at them and where they are held liable. It is also a matter of us ensuring that it becomes extremely palpable and difficult to commit grant-related crime.
From the government's side, we have provided historically large supplements to Försäkringskassan. This is the largest supplement since the beginning of the 2010s.
More changes have been proposed, which we have touched upon, both in terms of legislation and regarding other parts. They have entered into force during the mandate period so that fewer incorrect payments shall occur. The investigation we just spoke about attaches particular importance to reducing the incorrect payments and prosecuting grant-related crime as well as, obviously, ensuring that the regulatory framework is both legally secure and effective.
I would like to assert, Madam Speaker, that Försäkringskassan has never had as good conditions as it does now when it comes to addressing the problems that exist. At the same time, nothing happens by itself. This has been a hard and major piece of work from the government's side. We have allocated hundreds of millions. We have given several assignments to the agency in regulatory letters. We have enacted new laws and provided new conditions and more tools so that the agency can work in a way that is both forward-looking and legally secure.
The government naturally assumes that Försäkringskassan will continue to take responsibility by taking up the large appropriations that have now arrived, as well as that they investigate and produce more tools to be able to work even more effectively. The prerequisites are in place, and the political direction is very clear. The means and support from the government are also there. Now, a great responsibility rests on Försäkringskassan to deliver its part. I have no reason to believe that they will not succeed with that, given that I have a very good dialogue with Försäkringskassan and that they definitely share this ambition.
When it comes to the large repayments, I want to point out once again that Försäkringskassan has a large scope for action. If the individual is judged to have acted in good faith, the repayment can be adapted to the individual's economic and social situation. The repayment can be waived in whole or in part.
As the member explained, we have a system such that one can appeal. It proceeds if one is proven right, and then the reclaim is revoked. This system seems to work perfectly well. It is, however, regrettable when it goes so far that one ends up in that situation.
Jessica Rodén (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
We thus have a work injury insurance that is so complicated that not even Försäkringskassan itself manages to apply it correctly. Despite this, the entire responsibility is placed on the individual – on the one who is already injured, ill, or worn out.
Försäkringskassan's own systems do not talk to each other. A person who reports a new income in an SGI case does not have that information automatically updated in their life annuity case. This means that Försäkringskassan has the correct information on hand, but it does not reach through. Then comes the reclaim. It is not the citizen who has made a mistake, but it is the system that we should be addressing here.
This does not only concern isolated cases. 68 percent of all incorrectly paid life annuities are due to Försäkringskassan having made mistakes; this is confirmed by both internal reviews and courts time and again. But it is still the individual who has to take the entire hit, and the hit can be brutal. We have heard about demands for repayment of 280,000 kronor because the wage was raised by 10 kronor per hour. We have heard about 2,500 cases that are lying in a pile – the demands for repayment tick away in silence for several years, and when the letter finally arrives, the debt has grown to half a million.
Madam Speaker! One does not get healthy by being made poor.
We must also talk about the indexing of the living annuity. The living annuity is intended to cover the loss of income, but when the indexing lags behind wage development, the difference becomes smaller – not because the capacity to work has increased, but because the system calculates incorrectly. When the living annuity disappears on paper, even though the loss of income remains, the clawback occurs – often for the entire amount.
The Minister says that it is the individual's responsibility to report new information, but what is the state's responsibility when the public sector fails, when the systems are not coordinated and when the authority itself is responsible for the errors?
What is the government's plan to address these obvious systemic flaws in the occupational injury insurance?
Sanne Lennström (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the positive news regarding the investigation! I look forward to reading the proposals before the summer.
There are also other measures that we have debated previously here in the chamber, among others with the Minister's colleague Slottner, regarding tackling the problem that people do not receive sufficient help with their documents before they, for example, are to contact Försäkringskassan. I am naturally speaking about the fact that very many of the country's state service offices have been closed down.
Statens servicecenter offers an activity that helps the individual understand things such as those related to parental leave or sickness benefit. Försäkringskassan is one of the agencies that has been present at Statens servicecenter.
Several of the offices around the country are now closed; in my district, this concerns, among others, the office in Östhammar and the one in Enköping. This leads to the fact that people who previously could get help with their affairs can no longer get it. There are many who need that help, including people who find themselves in a digital exclusion. This can also increase the risk of making a mistake unintentionally and then facing a demand for repayment.
I realize that this is Slottner's area, but I still wanted to mention that it is an important piece of the puzzle to help people do the right thing. Just as the Minister said, it should be easy to do the right thing.
Now that we have seen the report from the Inspectorate for Social Insurance, I would like to ask the Minister if there is a risk that incorrect demands for repayment have been directed in other areas within Försäkringskassan than those we are debating here. I know that many are worried and wonder about this, so it would be good to have a statement on this today.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Many thanks to the interpellants for good questions and a good discussion!
I can begin by stating that the government welcomes the Swedish Pensions Agency's (ISF's) review of the legal quality of the Försäkringskassan's decisions regarding the recovery of sickness benefit and parental benefit. The report will now be analyzed more closely in the Government Offices. Furthermore, Försäkringskassan will provide a response to the report where the agency comments on the inspection's various conclusions and presents any measures it intends to take in light of the report. Subsequently, the government will, of course, take a position on whether further measures need to be taken beyond the work the government assumes Försäkringskassan is already performing.
Madam Speaker! Again: Försäkringskassan has probably never had better conditions to perform its work than it has now. It has received historically large appropriations, the largest since the beginning of the 2010s. It has also received significantly more tools and better conditions, both digitally and legislatively, so that correct information comes in more or less automatically so that the underlying data are correct from the start. This will help, above all, the individual who has no intention of making a mistake but who sometimes has difficulties, just as the members are pointing out. This will also significantly facilitate things for Försäkringskassan so that it can check and do it right from the start.
This will reduce grant-related crime and make it significantly harder for those who try to acquire our common tax money and put it into their own pockets. Furthermore, the consequences for them will be tangible.
But above all, it is about the fact that all those who have great needs also have a right to these important compensations. It is for them that the system is intended, and it must also be easy for them.
The systems are complex; that is not the point. We must therefore do everything in our power to simplify and improve. At the same time, we must neither compromise on legal certainty nor be too naive – something we have seen in the system and which has made it easy for criminals to obtain money they are not entitled to. This is a balancing act we must navigate.
I am determined that fewer incorrect payments shall occur. Furthermore, the Chamber has established a common goal regarding incorrect payments, and I believe we are in complete agreement on this goal.
Madam Speaker! Let me also touch upon Jessica Rodén's question regarding the indexing of the disability pension. It is also a complex issue. The Occupational Injury Inquiry is not the first inquiry that has highlighted the issue and submitted proposals. The inquiry into a more equal and legally secure insurance in the event of occupational injury already submitted a proposal in 2017 that the occupational injury disability pension should be recalculated annually and provide a change in the income index. I can only state that for eight years the Social Democrats did nothing about the matter, and the proposal was not taken further. In the Social Democrats' current budget, there is not a single krona budgeted for exactly what Jessica Rodén is now advocating for.
Jessica Rodén (S)
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that the security systems should be built on trust and not suspicion, that security should be there when it is needed and that it should not become a trap for those who try to do the right thing. But now Sweden has a system where the clawbacks have increased by 600 percent, where Försäkringskassan causes the majority of the errors, where people are saddled with debt despite having done the right thing and where the living allowance disappears despite the loss of income persisting.
Madam Speaker! This is not the Swedish model. It is not an insurance but a lottery. It is a system that is so complex that not even the authority manages to handle it correctly, which means that wage earners who have tried to follow all the rules still receive demand letters for hundreds of thousands of kronor.
But it is not just about economics; it is about justice, trust, and a society that keeps its promise to those who do right by themselves. The solution lies in a government inquiry that points out how one can remove exemptions, introduce fair indexing, and build a work injury insurance that holds up over time for both men and women and for both physical and mental ill health. It is time to move from words to action.
Sanne Lennström (S)
Madam Speaker! It also emerged in the ISF report that there is a discrepancy between how Försäkringskassan has estimated and reported its clawbacks and how ISF has presented the incorrect clawback that exists in the report. Let me underline again that this is serious. I do, however, welcome today's discussion, because it is important that we discuss legal certainty, how our tax money is used, and the trust in Swedish authorities. As the Minister mentioned, it is also important to find a balance. It should be easy to do the right thing.
Of course, the individual has a responsibility, but the authority also has a responsibility to maintain its position and its trust with the Swedish people. When one is in contact with Swedish authorities, one is in contact with the Swedish state. The contact must then occur in a dignified and legally secure manner so that trust is maintained.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Many thanks to both interpellants for the opportunity to discuss these important issues!
I do, however, get a bit apprehensive when I hear Member Jessica Rodén say that our social insurance systems must be based on trust, not suspicion. I get a bit nervous because trust-based systems are what have taken us to where we are today, where 15–20 billion kronor of our common tax money every year goes to incorrect payments and benefit crime. Half of these 15–20 billion is estimated to go to criminals and to finance organized crime, that is to say to people who absolutely do not have a right to our common tax money and our common social insurance systems. This is, therefore, happening in today's trust-based system.
Trust is good, but control is better. There has been a naivety in the generous welfare systems that has given criminals a chance to appropriate our common tax money, which then flows out and feeds organized crime. We must put a stop to this, and therefore the government has put legislation in place, given the authorities new tools, and ensured that it becomes easy to do the right thing. We have moved forward with these important reforms precisely in order to be able to secure the legitimacy of the common welfare systems and to be able to continue to guarantee that those who have great needs and a right to social insurance also receive what they are entitled to. To compromise on these reforms would risk feeding the criminal economy even more.
In this speech, Caroline Högström (M) agreed.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.