Now that the Directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border health care has been finally adopted after more than 12 years of debate, the discussion can start as to its importance and impact. In some ways, it reminds us of the discussion that was triggered right after the first seminal rulings of the European Court of Justice on the cases Decker and Kohll back in 1998. The question then was to know whether these judgments were to be considered a revolution or rather an evolution in the slow but steady process of EU integration in the field of health care. Where it was generally held that the classification of health services as ‘economic’, falling under the scope of free movement principles, was a logical step from a legal point of view, it took Member States and stakeholders a long time to more or less come to terms with the implications of this characterization.1 As a result, the ambit of the Directive was gradually narrowed to only include cross-border health care, i.e. ‘healthcare provided or prescribed in a Member State other than the State of affiliation’ (Article 3.e). The Directive explicitly mentions that it ‘shall not affect laws and regulations in Member States relating to the organization and financing of healthcare in situations not related to cross-border healthcare’ (Article 1.4). That also includes the freedom of each Member State to decide what type of health care it considers appropriate (recital 5a) and wishes to reimburse (recital 11). Moreover, the Directive did finally not clarify as to the wider effects of internal market and competition rules on health care and health systems.2 Perhaps the revolutionary nature of this Directive does not lie so much in what Delnoij and Sauter are calling the ‘old’ patients’ rights, i.e. the social …