Låt oss hålla fokus på de verkliga problemen att lösa, så att vi kan fortsätta utveckla vården till det bättre.
Sweden built Europe’s leading digital healthcare provider inside the public system. The current debate is mostly about how to make sure that never happens again. I’ve spent more than a decade building Kry inside Swedish primary care. The premise of digital healthcare has always been efficiency. A clinician handling a lab result in two minutes instead of booking a patient for a physical visit. A working parent getting seen at 9pm instead of taking half a day off. A patient in a region with no available GP getting care at all. That is not corner-cutting. That is the system finally doing its job. We delivered millions of consultations every year. In France alone, more than one million appointments. 60+ physical clinics across Europe. The model works. And yet the debate in Sweden has drifted somewhere strange. We’re discussing whether to restrict the cheaper, more accessible version of primary care because it’s too efficient. That is the wrong debate. There are real things to discuss. Reimbursement structures need to evolve. Hybrid models (digital plus physical) need clearer rules. Accountability needs to flow both ways between providers and regions. These are solvable. They are also boring, and boring is where most of the actual work happens. What is not solvable is a debate that treats efficiency as the problem. If we punish providers for delivering care faster and at lower cost, we will get less care, at higher cost, for fewer patients. That is the math. It does not change because someone finds it politically convenient. Sweden produced Kry because the system was once willing to let builders build inside it. Worth remembering what we got from it before deciding to close the door.