We write to express our thoughts on the recently published affiliation agreement between Estes Park Health and UCHealth.. This partnership opens a new chapter in the healthcare services available to our community and warrants thoughtful consideration and discussion.
Our local hospital has been a cornerstone of medical care for 50 years, providing accessible and compassionate service to Estes Park residents and visitors.
The affiliation with UCHealth promises financial stability, expanded resources, advanced medical technologies, and a broader spectrum of specialized care. UCHealth’s reputation for excellence and its extensive network can enhance the quality of healthcare in our community.
We are grateful to the Park Hospital District board, the EPH administration, and UCHealth for bringing this agreement to this point. As community members, it is hard to understand the amount of effort this has taken, and hard to overstate our appreciation for that.
However, as incoming board members, who have been directed by the community to support transparency and change at EPH, we have a fiduciary responsibility to our community.
The release of an incomplete document, just one week ago and on election day, does not give sufficient time for the community to review and comment on this very long and complex agreement. Why the rush?
The process that the Park Hospital District has followed has been secretive and opaque. Through a Colorado Open Records Act request and on behalf of the Estes Valley community, the Estes Valley Voice requested information about this agreement on three separate occasions, and their requests were denied.
While negotiations were conducted in good faith to benefit the community, releasing these agreements on election day feels rushed. It does not allow the people of Estes Park time to review them adequately.
The community and the newly elected board should have at least a month to review this, to make sure that we fulfill our fiduciary responsibility and to minimize the possibility that the Colorado attorney general could reject parts of this agreement that may be unfair to the people of the Park Hospital District.
This hospital district was created 50 years ago so that this community could have some control over the hospital and support it by paying property taxes. The idea that meaningful community input could be eliminated while we are forced to give up control of the nearly $4.8 million we provided in property taxes this year does not seem equitable.
We have several concerns about the agreement as presented:
- This agreement is one-sided, with multiple exit ramps for UCHealth and essentially none for EPH.
- There is an attempt in this agreement to maintain the current leadership of EPH for 18 months. The community has been very vocal in calling for a prompt change in leadership, and we were elected by large majorities to carry through with that.
- We are concerned that our EMS services could be degraded or even contracted out. The EPH EMS service is a vital component of emergency services in the Estes Valley, and we can tell you that our EMS service is extraordinary. As a rural EMS system, we have the personnel and policies to provide critical care that some hospital-based EMS systems and contractors like American Medical Response cannot do. We must leave the current structure of our EMS service intact.
- The mechanism outlined in the new affiliation agreement for selecting board members for the new hospital board also has considerable room for improvement. There should be a requirement for at least two Park Hospital District members on the new hospital board (as proposed, there is no assurance of even one), and there should be some mechanism for the community of Estes Park to elect or at least select the three community members proposed. In addition, we and many in the community are opposed to the current departing board members serving on the new hospital board for a period of at least two years.
These are our initial concerns about what we have seen of this incomplete document. The community has had very little time to consider the consequences of these lengthy and complex agreements. We request more time for the newly elected board and the community to review these agreements.
UCHealth and the Park Hospital District Board need to trust the incoming board to continue running this hospital in the short term and enact the policies the incoming board members campaigned on. Failure to do so will be poorly received by the community.
While we fully support this affiliation with or acquisition by UCHealth, wrinkles still need to be ironed out. Again, we ask that the signing of these documents be delayed for a month to give the newly elected board and community time to provide feedback to UCHealth. The idea that we have less than 10 days to do so is disrespectful and unacceptable.
It is crucial that these concerns are addressed transparently as the affiliation progresses. Local voices must be included in discussions to ensure that the partnership serves the best interests of our community. A collaborative approach will help maintain the hospital’s legacy of community-focused care while embracing the advancements this affiliation promises.
In conclusion, while the affiliation with UCHealth offers exciting prospects for enhanced healthcare services, it is imperative that we remain vigilant and proactive in ensuring that these changes benefit all members of our community. We look forward to helping this partnership evolve and hope the hospital administration remains committed to upholding the values that have long defined our local healthcare system.
Thomas E Leigh, MD
Janet Zeschin, RN, MS HSA
These are views of two disgruntled citizens. Thousands of us, Estes Park citizens feel the contrary and want this merger as soon as possible, without more haggling and delays.
Data source for the thousands of Estes Park citizens who feel the contrary? The recent election results dispute this claim.
Thank you Dr. Leigh and Janet for expressing some very valid points in your open letter to the hospital board and our community. We would so appreciate it if you could share your thoughts at tomorrow’s meeting!
Totally agree with all your points, most desired is the release of the current EPH leadership (Varda, Samples, Batey). They should be run our of town for what they have done to this hospital and the citizens that have so proudly utilized and supported this hospital with their donations , tax dollars and volunteers. So not give them an 18 month transition!
Tom and Janet – Where were your voices tonight? You expressed concerns in this letter, but at tonight’s meeting you were silent. At a minimum, you should have shared your concerns stated in this letter or explained to the audience that your concerns had been addressed and you were supportive of the affirmative vote this evening.
-A Disappointed Resident Who Voted for Tom and Janet