A painful decision by the regional council on the West-Northern Hospital led to this: a bunch of complaints go to the administrative court

The Regional Council of Kainuu approved the reinstatement of ward beds at the Kuhmo Assessment and Rehabilitation Unit during an extraordinary meeting held late Monday evening after two rounds of voting. This decision was part of a broader change program for the period 2026–2029, which includes several measures aimed at restructuring healthcare services within the region. The council voted in favor of the proposal with 31 votes to 28, while 13 members expressed differing opinions. In addition, the council also agreed that the use of basic health care and specialist outpatient services should not exceed 186 annual bed days by the end of 2027, a decision that passed with 36 votes to 23.

The decision to reinstate the ward beds at Kuhmo comes after the unit’s ward service was closed in the autumn of 2024. According to estimates, this move will increase costs by at least 600,000 euros annually. The regional council's approval of the change program is crucial because it allows the well-being region to apply for additional funding from the state to cover a deficit of 24 million euros. However, despite the need for financial support, the region is projected to see a rise in operational costs, exceeding its target reduction of 0.9 percent, with an estimated growth of 1.4 percent instead.

The extraordinary meeting was called due to a procedural error that occurred during a previous session on June 8. During that meeting, the automatic locking system of the entrance doors at the municipal building in Kajaani malfunctioned, preventing anyone from noticing until after the session had concluded. This incident led to the need for a new vote on the change program, ensuring that all necessary procedures were followed correctly before finalizing the decision.

In another related development, several municipalities in Western Ostrobothnia have decided to file complaints against the regional council's May decision to reduce services at the Western Ostrobothnia Hospital. These municipalities argue that the decision to cut services such as effective monitoring units, interventional cardiology, and readiness for surgeries outside regular hours was made without proper justification and could lead to irreversible consequences. They have requested an injunction to prevent the implementation of the decision, citing concerns about the difficulty of rectifying any negative effects later.

The regional government acted immediately on June 1, initiating the implementation of the council's decision, but did so cautiously to avoid making the appeal process futile. Municipalities in Meri-Lappi argue that the regional government mishandled the situation by failing to properly implement the March decision made by the regional council. The council had originally decided to reduce hospital services in Western Ostrobothnia contrary to the recommendations of a national evaluation group and the regional government, based instead on the hospital staff's proposals.

According to Tornio, the regional government reintroduced the March decision for reconsideration by the regional council without providing a legal basis for doing so, such as evidence that the council exceeded its authority or that the decision was made improperly. Additionally, some members of the evaluation group, including the head of the well-being region, Jari Jokela, and the chair of the regional government, Timo Peisa, were present at the meeting where the decision was made. Tornio claims these individuals exerted pressure on the regional officials to overturn their previous decision and accept the recommendations of the evaluation group.

Municipalities such as Kemi are also challenging the regional council's decision, arguing that the evaluation group does not have the power to override the March decision made by the regional council. Despite this, the regional council proceeded with its May decision based on the evaluation group's stance, which Kemi believes undermines local self-governance. Kemi further argues that the cost analyses prepared by the evaluation group regarding the impact of the hospital changes are largely incorrect, incomplete, or based on uncertain assumptions. These analyses reportedly fail to account adequately for potential costs arising from patient transfers and delays in treatment, as well as increased burdens on other hospitals.

Overall, there is significant concern among the affected municipalities about patient safety and the long-term implications of reducing essential healthcare services. Some local governments have already taken steps to formally challenge the decisions made by the regional council, seeking legal recourse to prevent the implementation of policies they believe could harm public health and undermine local autonomy. As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how the legal challenges will proceed and whether the regional council's decisions will stand or face substantial revisions.