Anna Törner: ”If I fall seriously ill, I’ll move to Finland”
I must admit, the Finnish language isn’t the easiest, and their November weather is every bit as bleak as Stockholm’s. But I’ve had enough of Sweden’s so-called commitment to “fairness.” The notion that equality is achieved by barring individuals from using their own money to access innovative, life-extending medicines (not yet included in the national subsidy framework). This feels like a dusty relic of outdated socialism.
In contrast, Finland has embraced a more pragmatic approach allowing private cancer care. Swedes who are denied cutting-edge treatments in the name of equality now have the option to seek care in Finland.
At some point in our lives, most of us will face the haunting possibility of serious illness. A friend of mine recently received a crushing diagnosis: metastatic kidney cancer, a condition with a poor prognosis and no possibility of cure. By bittersweet coincidence, the European Medicines Agency recently approved a new therapy for his condition – palliative, yes, but a significant leap forward nonetheless. Sweden, as an EU member, is expected to follow suit shortly.
At some point in our lives, most of us will face the haunting possibility of serious illness
Yet for my friend, this development is no immediate salvation. After regulatory approval, Sweden’s Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV) and the Council for New Therapies (NT-rådet) must assess whether the medication will be included in the public subsidy system. This process can take months or years – time that my friend and others in similar circumstances simply do not have.
Especially, when the potential benefit of a treatment is measured in months or perhaps a single year, every day is infinitely precious. Nevertheless, health economic evaluation is a necessary step to ensure that we manage our collective taxpayer wallet fairly and responsibly.
But what if my friend offers to pay for the treatment himself? To put it bluntly, his pension savings may not serve him in the future. And he’s more than willing to spend his money to extend his life. Unfortunately, he can’t. Here is where the principle of equality trumps personal agency, and he is denied the right to self-fund his care. The reasoning? It would be unfair to those without the means to do the same.
But fairness? Life is inherently unfair. We already allow people to use their money for other public services, from private education to healthcare outside the standard system. Yet when it comes to lifesaving cancer treatment, the rules tighten, and individual choice is curtailed in the name of equality.
This piece isn’t just about my friend. Tragically, it’s perhaps too late for him. It is about a deeper flaw in our system: the abandonment of democratic principles in a vain attempt to create equality. As medical innovation accelerates, we will see longer subsidy decisions (even as authorities try to streamline this). Patients will get caught in the gap between approval and subsidized access. Moreover, we will encounter cases where approved treatments are never subsidized due to their high cost or small marginal health benefits. Does this mean these medications are to be outright banned?
Sweden’s healthcare system is among the finest in the world. We continue to improve it by raising the floor for everyone, not lowering the ceiling. Yet, it is both undignified and undemocratic that cancer patients must travel to Finland to uphold a façade of fairness that does not truly exist.
ANNA TÖRNER
är grundare av SDS Life Science.
Artikeln är en del av vårt tema om News in English.