Charles Becker, a staff attorney with the Office of the Health Care Advocate, told the legislative committee that H.577 would make a Vermont drug discount card program available and could produce large consumer savings, but warned that the bill should be clarified so consumers actually get the benefit.

"ArrayRx discount card purchases will not count toward your deductible or out of pocket maximum," Becker quoted from ArrayRx's public FAQ and said the plain language on the vendor website, combined with complex Vermont statute cross‑references, leaves open whether PBMs must credit discount‑card payments in practice.

Becker said the HCA supports giving the treasurer authority to opt Vermont into the multistate program because the card would give uninsured and underinsured Vermonters another price option at local pharmacies. He contrasted discount cards with insurer‑linked copay assistance, explaining that discount cards typically bypass a consumer's health plan and may not be automatically recorded by a plan's PBM.

The HCA witness illustrated the consumer impact with his own example: after a deductible reset he was quoted $1,836 by his plan for a one‑month supply of a medication; an online cost‑plus pharmacy listed $63.46 and an ArrayRx price lookup showed $73.47 at one local pharmacy. "That's a crazy amount of savings," he said, noting those differences could matter immediately to people who face large deductible buckets.

But Becker emphasized a trade‑off: if a consumer uses a discount card and the payment does not count toward their deductible or out‑of‑pocket maximum, they may pay less now yet risk losing credit toward future covered care. He walked the committee through statutory language in 18 VSA (as amended by Act 127) that requires a pharmacy benefit manager to attribute third‑party payments toward a covered person's deductible, but said cross‑references and definitions create room for a PBM to argue that a discount‑card cash transaction falls outside the statute.

To address that legal uncertainty, Becker recommended amending H.577 to include clarifying language similar to the provision discussed in earlier H.202 (and pointing to Connecticut's recent public act), so that a cash price used to determine allowable cost would expressly "include the lowest possible price the individual would be able to obtain by using a drug discount card" when the purchase is for a drug covered by the health plan and the card yields a lower price.

Colin Hilliard, advocacy director for AARP Vermont, also testified in support of H.577 and offered AARP's help with outreach. Hilliard cited survey and public‑health data on older adults' use of prescription drugs and urged the committee to explore whether discount‑card spending can count toward deductibles to make messaging and enrollment simpler for vulnerable Vermonters. "By joining forces with other states, we can amplify our negotiating power, reduce administrative waste and create real savings," Hilliard said.

Committee members asked practical questions about how a pharmacist or a plan would know that a cash purchase was both for a covered drug and at a lower price; Becker said some manual claim reconciliation by consumers or plan staff is likely unless systems are changed. He also noted that past work on H.202 included a counter‑notice at pharmacy counters advising customers they may inquire about other prices, but he did not identify an existing affirmative duty for pharmacists to tell customers other pricing is available.

The committee did not take a formal vote during the morning session. Committee members signaled further discussion and follow‑up testimony are expected, including technical conversations with the Department of Financial Regulation and plan representatives to resolve implementation questions. The committee reconvened after lunch at 1:00 p.m. in Room 11 for a joint session with Human Services.