Estes Park Health trustee calls for pause in hospital acquisition by UCHealth

I am a physician. I retired last September, and the last nine of my 35 years in emergency medicine were at Estes Park Health. I write this letter not as a Park Hospital District Board member, but as a concerned citizen of Estes Park.

Estes Park Health and the community of Estes Park have enjoyed a healthy partnership with UCH for many years. UCHealth has helped, more than any other institution, to care for our neighbors and visitors whose needs exceeded our capacities, and they have performed exceptionally. I never doubted that if EPH was to partner with a larger institution, the only reasonable choice was UCH.

This past spring, I ran for a seat on the Park Hospital District board and was elected with 63% of the vote after running on a platform focused on administrative change, transparency, and ensuring that what was being billed as an “affiliation” with UCHealth would be the best possible outcome for Estes Park Health and the Estes Park community. My primary concerns have always been patient and hospital worker welfare.  

The agreement between Estes Park Health and UCHealth was signed within days of my election, before I was sworn in, and before all the details were complete or known to the taxpayers who have supported this hospital over the past 50 years. As a new board member, I had no input whatsoever.

I’ve come to several conclusions about this agreement:

• It is reasonable to believe that an “affiliation” with UCHealth could bring about administrative and purchasing efficiencies in supplies and equipment, better benefits for the hospital staff, better clinical support for our physicians, and improved quality of care through increased opportunities for staff training and staffing.
• However, this deal is not fair to Estes Park Health or the community of Estes Park. This transaction violates two sections of the Hospital Transfer Act, C.R.S.6-19-203, (2)(b)(III and IV). I am concerned that the prior Park Hospital Board acted unreasonably in accommodating our community and breached their fiduciary responsibilities. The facts, as best as I can determine, are as follows:
• Approximately three years ago, the Park Hospital District Board of Directors determined, after consulting with “strategic advisors”– namely attorneys from the law firm of Hall Render — that “affiliation” with a larger, more resilient organization was essential for the long-term viability of Estes Park Health.
• No formal feasibility study was done before making this “hair on fire, sky is falling” decision. This was an unsupported and unfounded claim. In addition, it appears there was a conflict of interest since Hall Render went on to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsequent consulting fees.
• Sometime later, and several months before the referendum on May 2, 2023, in which the Estes Park Community authorized the Park Hospital Board to proceed with an affiliation with a larger non-profit health care entity, the Park Hospital  District Board of Directors entered into a non-disclosure agreement with UCH.
• On May 2, 2023, the voters of Estes Park passed the ballot measure authorizing the Board of Directors to enter into an agreement with another health care entity.
• This ballot measure, written in opaque legalese, effectively permitted the Park Hospital Board of Directors to negotiate almost any deal without voters having a say in the final agreement.
• The negotiating process was secretive, with over 200 executive session meetings and at least one, possibly more, violation of the Colorado Open Records Act, especially C.R.S. 24-6- 402.1.b, which requires emails discussing board matters to be open to the public.
• An incomplete version of the agreement was released for public review on election day, May 6, 2025, when voters were at the polls to elect new board members.
• Afterwards, two public meetings were scheduled within two weeks, an unreasonably short time for the public and newly elected board members to review the documents before outgoing board members signed them on May 15, before the election results could be certified, and before the two new board members, Janet Zeschin and me, were sworn in or could provide any input.

I object to:

• How the “affiliation’ was conceived, without any formal feasibility study.
• Establishing a nondisclosure agreement with UCHealth before the Park Hospital Directors asked the community for permission to enter into discussions with UCHealth with prospective partners.
• The fact that the “strategic advisors” who pushed this affiliation stood to profit while consulting for Estes Park Health. More than 200 executive sessions were used to keep the public from knowing details or even broad concepts of what was at stake.

I don’t believe that the deal is fair because it:

• Requires the Park Hospital District taxpayers to pay $4.5 million annually from a property mill levy without any guaranteed input by the elected Park Hospital District Board of Directors, whose only role after the affiliation will be to disburse the collected tax revenues. This is the definition of “ taxation without representation.”
• Maintains the status quo administratively when the hospital administration has failed to serve it, and, from numerous reports by current and former employees, created a toxic, dysfunctional, inadequate institutional workplace.
• Effectively sells a community asset for $1 a year.
• Fails to make adequate monetary and administrative commitments to the community about what services will be maintained and supported,  especially the Estes Park ambulance service.
• Leaves multiple exit ramps that allow UCHealth to withdraw from the affiliation for any reason, and none for EPH. This is a purchase where the buyer – UCHealth – can return the item it bought for any reason at any time and in any condition if it develops buyer’s remorse. It is a pre-nuptial agreement where the financially dominant partner can kick the other to the curb on a whim, and saddle that partner with unreasonable liabilities and inadequate assets.

I believe the prior Park Hospital District Board has put together a very poor agreement which disenfranchises Estes Park residents, especially the taxpayers who have supported this hospital financially with tax money and significant donations over the past five decades.

This agreement does not secure Estes Park Health’s viability and may increase the risk of failure and further service loss. I don’t think what the prior board negotiated is what this community wants, needs, or deserves.

I ask that the Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser pause this affiliation agreement until the current Park Hospital District Board has a chance to consult with a firm assuring the community of Estes Park that this is the lowest risk and highest reward path forward. And I believe that the community should have an opportunity to vote on the merits of this agreement.