More than 100 people filled the Estes Park Community Center on July 31 to share their thoughts with Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser about the proposed acquisition of Estes Park Health by UCHealth.
The meeting began with remarks from Diana Noyes, Director of Outreach for the Attorney General’s Office, who established the rules for the public forum, which included each speaker having three minutes to speak uninterrupted. Then, Weiser addressed the crowd, offering context on the attorney general’s role in the review process under the Colorado Hospital Transfer Act.
“The exact standard that I am reviewing is whether or not this transaction results in a material change in the public interest served by the hospital,” he said. “That could include reducing the availability or the accessibility of health care services in the relevant community.”
Weiser, who is currently running for governor, made no promises about the outcome but stressed the importance of public comment in shaping his office’s decision.
“We are not in a position today to give you any sort of substantive evaluation whether or not this merger of the Estes Park Health and UCHealth effort would result in a material change,” he said. “We’re rather here because we want to hear from you.”
Of the 20 speakers who addressed Weiser, 13 voiced strong support for the deal. Five raised concerns about transparency, financial risk, and oversight, while two offered mixed views and urged close scrutiny.
David Batey, former chair of the Park Hospital District Board, offered an early statement of support.
“The proposed partnership will provide priceless benefits for the community in terms of access to additional healthcare services, and through this partnership, our community will have access to world-class quality healthcare options that Estes Park Health alone simply does not provide,” Batey said. “I hope your review will be favorable, and our community can move toward an ever-brighter future of outstanding health care for many years to come.”
Jim Jameson, an Estes Park resident, was the first to speak out against the proposal, citing Tom Leigh’s opinion commentary for Estes Valley Voice, which called for a pause in the acquisition. Leigh is an emergency room physician who retired from EPH last September and was elected to the Park Hospital District board of directors in May. Jameson stated he didn’t “have an axe to grind” with EPH or UCHealth, but he takes “great issue with the process that got us here today.”
“This transaction was subjected to a nondisclosure agreement before the public even voted to give authority that negotiations like this should go forward,” Jameson said. “There were repeated requests to the board for documents. An indefensible denial of not sharing documents with a blanket statement that it was privileged and confidential.”
Jameson was referring to the recent court case brought by the Estes Valley Voice against the EPH board for withholding public documents from public review.
Bill Brown, an Estes Park Town Trustee, then argued that while community financial support for the hospital remains strong, the agreement strips residents of meaningful control.
“These agreements also are unreasonable to the interests of the community by failing to give the community any control, oversight, or meaningful input into the future of the hospital,” Brown said. “It is an insult to the community to require ongoing property tax support in excess of $4 million per year without meaningful board and community oversight and input.”
Rebecca Urquhart, a retired attorney, echoed this concern, pointing out that the acquisition terms will require Park Hospital District property taxpayers to pay but have no say in policymaking.
Others argued that the affiliation was critical to maintaining local healthcare access. Jennifer McLellan, a general surgeon and chief of the medical staff at Estes Park Health, said the medical community overwhelmingly supported the transition.
“With the changes occurring in our country, we believe it is imperative for us to partner with a larger organization very soon,” McLellan said. “We believe UCHealth is the right partner for us to continue to provide excellent patient care for many years to come and become one of the best critical access hospitals in this country.”
Following additional comments, including criticism by Leigh that “this is not a good deal for the people of Estes Park,” everyone who wanted to speak on the first pass did so. Weiser then invited attendees to make additional comments.
Batey took the chance to “offer a brief clarification about concerns of a lack of community representation” on what will be a newly formed board. According to Batey, two members will be from UCHealth, three members will be at large from the Estes Valley community, and two members will be representatives from the Park Hospital District Board, the members of which are elected by the residents of the Park Hospital District.
“So, five out of seven members of the Estes Park Medical Center Board will be community representatives,” Batey said.
Steve Wirrig, a five-year resident of Estes Park, then questioned the objections raised by critics.
“I guess the two things I hear from the dissenters of this is the way it was submitted and that it was written in haste,” he said. “So it took them, if I am not wrong, three years to do this. If that was written in haste, are we now supposed to take another three, four, five years to do this over so everybody is happy, everybody gets their way?”
Then, referring to Weiser, who is an elected official, Wirrig said, “You’re a politician. You know it doesn’t work out. We could stay here till the cows come home and argue this, but it’s time to fish or cut bait.”
However, Wirrig’s comments did not stop residents from continuing to question the structure of the acquisition deal. The meeting’s most contentious moment came when Mark Hawkins Adams, a physician who specializes in geriatrics, asked how board members would be selected under the new agreement. Batey responded that while the board would include five local representatives, all appointments would require UCHealth’s approval.
“So if they, UCH, doesn’t agree, they’re going to put the people on that board to represent the community,” the speaker said. “I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think that’s going to be good for our community. “
The exchange laid bare a central tension in the affiliation: if Estes Park taxpayers continue to fund the hospital through property taxes—more than $4 million annually—but have little oversight of its operations, who is truly accountable for its future?
Kristin MacMurray-Schmelter, a resident who described herself as undecided before the meeting, urged Weiser to make sure the community’s voice is genuinely heard.
“I believe the people that I hear today are not people that are against this acquisition, are not people that are not appreciative of all the work that the board has done on this,” she said. “I think they’re just concerned that the community’s interests are really listened to and that we are getting the best thing for our own. So that’s what I was really asking you to do. I’m not saying I’m for it or against it. I’m asking that the due diligence be done on behalf of the community.”
The review process is ongoing. According to Lawrence Pacheco, spokesperson for the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, Weiser’s team received materials related to the proposed transaction on June 18. Although the law sets a minimum 60-day review period, Pacheco said the attorney general will likely extend that timeline. “We don’t have to request this; we can just extend if needed,” he said. “And we are likely to extend, given the amount of material that we have to go through.”
Written comments will continue to be accepted until August 8 via email.
Whether Weiser emerges from this process as a champion of community-driven healthcare reform or as the official who greenlit a contentious handoff of local control may hinge on how he weighs short-term needs against long-term consequences. With the public now on record, the final decision rests with him.
You must be logged in to post a comment.