In recent weeks, a growing debate has emerged in Sweden regarding the role of digital healthcare providers, particularly focusing on accusations that companies like Kry are undermining the country’s primary care system. The discussion gained prominence after a senior physician published a critical commentary suggesting that doctors working for such platforms should feel ashamed for contributing to what he describes as the exploitation of public healthcare resources.
The physician in question, identified as Eric Bertholds, an overläkare (senior physician), argued in a published debate article that digital health companies are “milking the system” by directing more complex cases to traditional primary care centers while retaining reimbursement for simpler consultations. This, he contends, places an unfair burden on local health centers and diverts resources from those most in need.
According to the article published by News55 and later echoed in Dagens Nyheter, Bertholds claims that the current reimbursement model allows digital providers to profit from state-funded consultations without adequately supporting the broader healthcare infrastructure. He asserts that this arrangement benefits neither patients nor the long-term sustainability of Sweden’s medical system, placing responsibility on both policymakers who permit the model and physicians who participate in it.
The core of the criticism centers on the financial mechanics of Sweden’s healthcare reimbursement. Under the current system, digital care providers receive payment per consultation from regional authorities, regardless of case complexity. Critics argue that this incentivizes providers to focus on low-complexity, high-volume cases—such as prescription renewals or minor ailments—while referring patients with more serious or undiagnosed conditions to physical clinics, which then bear the full diagnostic and treatment burden without corresponding compensation.
This dynamic, Bertholds suggests, creates a scenario where digital platforms appear efficient and profitable on paper, but in practice, shift costly and time-intensive function onto under-resourced primary care units. He maintains that this undermines the principle of equitable access to care, particularly for elderly patients, those with chronic conditions, or individuals lacking digital literacy—groups that may struggle to navigate app-based consultations effectively.
The debate has drawn attention not only from medical professionals but also from health policy analysts concerned about the long-term implications of privatized digital healthcare models. Some experts warn that without structural reforms, such systems risk creating a two-tiered approach where convenience for some comes at the expense of accessibility and quality for others.
Supporters of digital healthcare counter that platforms like Kry expand access to medical advice, especially in underserved or rural areas, reduce waiting times for non-urgent issues, and offer flexibility for both patients and clinicians. They argue that innovation in healthcare delivery should be encouraged, not stigmatized, and that any systemic inefficiencies stem from outdated reimbursement frameworks rather than the technology itself.
Nonetheless, the critique from within the medical establishment—particularly from a figure holding the title of overläkare—has added weight to calls for reform. In Sweden, the title of överläkare signifies a senior level of clinical expertise and responsibility, often attained after years of specialized practice and leadership within a hospital or clinical setting. As such, perspectives from individuals in this role are typically regarded as informed reflections on systemic healthcare challenges.
The timing of the commentary coincides with broader European discussions about regulating digital health services. Several countries have begun reassessing how telemedicine is integrated into national health systems, particularly regarding data privacy, clinical safety, and equitable reimbursement. In Germany, for example, the Digital Healthcare Act (DVG) has enabled broader reimbursement for digital health applications, but ongoing evaluations assess whether these innovations deliver measurable improvements in patient outcomes without increasing systemic costs.
In Sweden, no immediate legislative changes have been announced in direct response to the criticism. However, regional authorities and the national government continue to evaluate the performance and cost-effectiveness of digital care providers as part of ongoing healthcare sustainability reviews. Stakeholders await further guidance from the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs on whether adjustments to payment models or eligibility criteria for digital services are under consideration.
For patients navigating these evolving options, the situation underscores the importance of understanding how different care channels function within the national system. While digital consultations can offer convenience for follow-ups, medication management, or minor health concerns, they may not be suitable for initial diagnoses of complex symptoms, chronic disease management, or situations requiring physical examination.
Healthcare officials consistently advise that individuals should use digital tools as a complement to—not a replacement for—regular contact with their primary care provider, especially when symptoms persist, worsen, or are unclear. Maintaining an ongoing relationship with a local health center remains critical for coordinated, continuous care.
As the conversation continues, the focus remains on aligning innovation with equity. The challenge for policymakers is to harness the benefits of digital health technology while ensuring that public funds support a system that is accessible, sustainable, and fair for all residents, regardless of age, location, or technological comfort.
The next official update on Sweden’s digital healthcare policy is expected during the spring legislative review period, with potential announcements anticipated from the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs by mid-2026. Readers interested in following developments are encouraged to consult official government publications and regional healthcare authority reports for verified information.
We invite our readers to share their experiences and perspectives on digital healthcare services in the comments below. Have you used platforms like Kry or similar services? How did your experience compare to traditional in-person care? Your insights help foster a deeper understanding of what works—and what needs improvement—in modern healthcare delivery.