Indirect and Invisible Regulations Set in Stone: A Driving Force behind the Rise of Private Health Insurance in Sweden

Abstract

The Swedish welfare model is gradually losing its former characteristics. Notable is the extensive privatization of provision and the emerging privatization of funding, primarily through new and half-private services in health care, education, and elderly care. The clearest example of this trend is the rise of private health insurance, which is now signed by every tenth person of working age. This article points out different types of regulations that have provoked the rise of private health insurance, and discusses types of regulations that could potentially slow privatization. Further, this article analyzes three official welfare investigation reports. These reports avoid the decisive regulations they are supposed to discuss, and sometimes go against directives to do so. I argue that regulations for private health insurance have occurred without much debate, while every potential regulation against private health insurance is very much disputed by industry interests and many of the political parties.

Private health insurance in the United States and Sweden: A comparative review

“…7 One of the major causes of inefficiency facing the Swedish healthcare system is long wait times, as emphasis is placed on treating the sickest patients first. 7,13 Additionally, Sweden does not have a robust primary care system, and improvements are required in monitoring results. 14 Furthermore, an issue at the forefront of Swedish politics is the Stop Law, which aims to prevent fast-track lanes to healthcare access that are provided to individuals who have private coverage.…”

“…14 Citizens are less satisfied with the high tax rate they pay for universal health care when private options exist, and there is the potential for tax break functionalities to be abused by firms and individuals. 13 Additionally, the present way private health insurance is utilized in Sweden does not provide support to the public system, but rather detracts from it via competition. Healthcare providers who accept private insurance often treat patient groups under agreements that differ from their contracts with local governments and private firms to provide care to local populations.…”

“…Healthcare providers who accept private insurance often treat patient groups under agreements that differ from their contracts with local governments and private firms to provide care to local populations. 13…”

“…Sweden boasts a life expectancy of 82 years and has a low amenable mortality rate, indicating its hospital systems are effective at preventing deaths from illnesses that are deemed treatable by modern healthcare standards 7 . One of the major causes of inefficiency facing the Swedish healthcare system is long wait times, as emphasis is placed on treating the sickest patients first 7,13 . Additionally, Sweden does not have a robust primary care system, and improvements are required in monitoring results 14 .…”

Privatising, liberalising and dividing a welfare state without affecting universality? Debunking the myths surrounding the rapid rise of private health insurance in Sweden

“…However, this mistake is made in the article mentioned above (Kullberg, Blomqvist and Winblad, 2021), an article that partly takes off from my research (eg. Lapidus, 2017, 2019, 2020) and the public debate that I have initiated over the rapid rise of private health insurance in Sweden.…”