« We safeguard the integrity of patients so much that they are injured »
In Sweden, all residents have access to health care- which, after all, belongs to the best in the world with low avoidable mortality and high survival in many diseases. This shows a new review of Swedish health care which today (19/6 2025) is published in the European Journal of Epidemiology. There is much for Sweden to be proud of:
The care is mainly financed through the tax bill, which keeps down the deductions (86 percent of total healthcare expenses are publicly funded). We have low levels of so -called avoidable mortality. Cancer mortality is about 30 percent lower in Sweden than in, for example, the UK and Denmark. From an international perspective, few Swedes die in diabetes and cardiovascular disease. We also have exceptionally good survival among newborns and child mortality is among the lowest in the world.
We have low levels of so -called avoidable mortality
Hospital admissions for many chronic diseases have decreased during the 2000s. There is much evidence that preventive health efforts in Sweden will benefit. Older people in our country move more than peers in other countries. Average alcohol consumption is lower and the number of smokers fewer than in the rest of Europe. All in all, this indicates that our health is good.
But while Swedish health care has many strengths so there are also major challenges:
1. Fragmentation and lack of continuity. Sweden suffers from lack of coordination between different healthcare providers and IT systems. This mainly affects people with chronic diseases who receive efforts from several healthcare providers.
The reasons for this are several: a low proportion of general practitioners, separate IT systems, and a regulatory framework that is aimed at primarily protecting patients’ integrity. Different IT systems and a one-sided focus on protecting patients’ integrity in all situations inhibits communication between healthcare providers. Today’s compensation system also does not promote coordination to a sufficient extent. All this contributes to fragmentation and lack of continuity, factors we see as significant threats to Swedish health.
2. Under -dimensioned primary care. Sweden has comparatively few general practitioners per inhabitant. With 0.6 general practitioners per 1,000 inhabitants, we are lower than other corresponding countries. Both our Nordic neighboring countries (Denmark 0.8, Norway 0.9 and Finland 1.4) and large parts of the Anglo -Saxon world (UK 0.8, Canada 1.3, Australia 1.8) have more general practitioners per inhabitant. At the same time, primary care is given an increasingly broader assignment, as the proportion of elderly people with great needs increases in the population and medical-technical development enables treatment of more illnesses and conditions outside hospitals.
3. Unequal care. The Swedish Health Care Act (1982: 763) states that care should be equal and given based on needs and not based on factors such as income, age, gender, nationality, ethnicity, or private health insurance. Regions and municipalities are obliged to provide high quality care to the entire population. Nevertheless, unjustified differences in the country are seen for certain parts of the care.
4. Lack of crisis preparedness and few places of care. Pandemics and a troubled world place increased demands on Swedish health care. Although Sweden had one Lower mortality in Covid-19 Than many other countries, the lack of care places was evident. Sweden’s 1.9 care places (« hospital beds ») per 1,000 inhabitants are lowest in the EU. Here we can again see ourselves surpassed by our Nordic neighboring countries (Denmark 2.4, Finland 2.6, and Norway 3.4 hospital beds per 1,000 inhabitants). A special concern is the lack of IVA sites in Sweden.
Many health care workers testify to how requirements to quickly send home patients lead to ethical stress, frequent re -posting and poorer work environment
The lack of care places leads to overloaded emergency rooms because doctors cannot enter patients. As a consequence, acutely ill people are at risk of being sent home directly from the emergency and inpatient patients sent home prematurely. Many healthcare workers testify to how requirements to quickly send home patients lead to ethical stress, frequent re -inserts and poorer work environment. But those who are most affected by the lack of care are of course precisely the patients.
Overall, offers The Swedish health care system care of high quality. But several things have to be done.
A strengthening of resources is necessary for primary care to be able to cope with the broad assignment to provide easily accessible health care for common care needs throughout the population and at the same time meet increasing need for care and coordination of interventions in the growing proportion of older people with great needs. Compensation systems and working methods should be designed so that they encourage prevention and cost efficiency in the long term, which is achieved through continuity and coordination.
We must seriously dare to talk about priorities. From adopting « wise clinical choices » (that is, to pattern out care that does not create value) to prioritizing harder so that resources are sufficient.
Finally we need Veloquently follow the Swedish healthcare’s ability to offer equal care. Our review shows that there are inequalities and unjustified differences that must be removed.
