Cigna won’t cover a "single source generic", but there are three authorized generic versions

I have a Cigna plan (Open Access Plus with HSA) and, as I have met my deductible this year, have all generics covered 100% currently. This has worked out fine for another prescription recently.

However, after several layers of difficulty, Cigna is not covering my levalbuterol (generic Xopenex). I got their prior authorization as required but they say that since it is a "single source generic" it's not covered by my plan; or, more accurately, it is but with a co-pay that's the entire price of the med, Cigna pays $0.

I am confused on two points:

I can't find this distinction between generic-generics and single source generics in my plan. The associate helping me in Cigna chat weren't able to point me to it either**, just to a way to view covered drugs individually. What about the transparency the ACA requires? Looking for generic licenses for levalbuterol I found there are three authorized versions, at least according to drugs.com. Is it possible that all three labels are produced by the patent holders, and so are still "single source"?

I spent an hour in Cigna chat with a confused associate who had to ask a dozen departments before she could tell me what was up, and while I think I basically understand it feels squirrely. Can anyone shed light on this? Is it legit, or should I be complaining somewhere?

(Fwiw I can afford my inhalers with the coupon they sent me and will be okay, but obviously I want this right and also like to understand better.)

TIA for any insight anyone can share!

** In my plan description it has the caveat "Certain limitations may apply, including, for example: prior
authorization, step therapy, quantity limits" but there is no clear way to learn what those limits are

See also  Life & Health Insurance Underwriting & Rating Software Market | Worldwide Industry Key Trends, Competitive Scenario, Current and Future Players 2022 – 2029 – Political Beef - Political Beef

submitted by /u/aliceasin_wonderland
[comments]