When Connecticut lawmakers pushed the UConn Health hospital acquisition bill through the November special session — without a public hearing — it was clear transparency was not the priority.
Now UConn Health, the state-run hospital system preparing to spend roughly half a billion taxpayer dollars acquiring Waterbury Hospital, has taken that secrecy a step further. Under the legislation rushed through the November special session — which authorizes UConn Health not just to purchase Waterbury Hospital but potentially to acquire additional struggling hospitals in the future — the financial stakes extend far beyond a single transaction. Yet in its Certificate of Need filing, UConn has asked state regulators to seal its cost and market impact review (CMIR) — the central analysis used to evaluate how the deal would affect prices, competition, access, and the financial risks taxpayers may ultimately assume.
The legislature avoided public scrutiny when passing the legislation. UConn Health is now avoiding scrutiny on the financials themselves.
According to its filing, UConn Health plans to invest $195 million in Waterbury Hospital over the next two years, including $13 million paid directly to Prospect Medical Holdings, the California based, bankrupt for-profit chain that allowed the hospital to deteriorate. But the upfront investment represents only a small portion of the true cost. The bulk will come from $390 million in UConn 2000 bonds, state-backed debt. Onceinterest is included, taxpayers will ultimately shoulder roughly $500 million.
The financial risk is not theoretical. It falls squarely on Connecticut residents.
As reported by CT Insider, UConn Health submitted a request alongside its 774-page application asking state health regulators to keep confidential the very documents needed for the public and the lawmakers to evaluate the fiscal soundness of the deal — specifically the CMIR and an economist’s analysis of price, competition, and access. UConn argued disclosure would harm its “competitive value.”
That is not the language of a public institution. It is the language of a private corporation protecting trade secrets.
UConn is not the only system seeking confidentiality. Hartford HealthCare, a private nonprofit network, has also requested sealed documents in its bid to purchase Prospect’s remaining Connecticut hospitals. But there is a critical difference: Hartford HealthCare uses its own capital. It does not rely on taxpayer-backed borrowing, state tax forgiveness, or public guarantees. When a private corporation asks for confidentiality, it is shielding its own interests — not public money.
UConn Health is attempting something far more sweeping: using public financing while shielding the public from the financial details.
The stakes go beyond the bond package. The agreement includes forgiving a portion of Prospect’s more than $200-million tax debt to the state — an extraordinary subsidy for a company that left Connecticut hospitals in disrepair and, in one case, facing an “immediate jeopardy” safety finding earlier this year.
And Waterbury Hospital may be only the beginning. UConn’s new organizational chart outlines an expanded network of nonprofit affiliates under the UConn Health Community Network Corporation, with Bristol Hospital and Day Kimball Hospital listed as future additions. Both are financially distressed. If UConn proceeds down this path, taxpayers may soon be funding a much larger hospital system than anyone has openly discussed.
Supporters of the Waterbury acquisition argue that an expanded UConn Health will offer a lower-cost option for state employees and retirees, reduce strain on John Dempsey Hospital, and stabilize a vulnerableregion. Those claims may hold merit, but they cannot be meaningfully evaluated if the underlying financial analysis is hidden from the public.
Trust is not built through secrecy. It is built through transparency — precisely what UConn is attempting to avoid.
Governor Ned Lamont and Comptroller Sean Scanlon have both expressed strong support for directing state-plan members into an expanded UConn system. If state leaders intend to place the full weight of government behind this venture, they should also insist that UConn adhere to the basic principles of public accountability. Taxpayers cannot assess the wisdom of the acquisition if its financial assumptions are kept out of sight.
UConn Health has a long history of operating losses, structural deficits, and regular state bailouts. It is now preparing to absorb a hospital whose private owner could not keep it solvent. In a transaction of this scale, transparency is not an optional — it is the minimum requirement for responsible governance.
If UConn Health wants to build a statewide hospital network with public dollars, it must do so in the open. Connecticut cannot afford a publicly financed expansion wrapped in private-sector secrecy. Sealing the cost and market impact review is more than a technical request.
It is a warning, and unless regulators reject it, Connecticut risks creating something far worse than an opaque deal: a publicly financed hospital empire with no public oversight.
