Should new health technology be available only for patients able and willing to pay?

New health technology comes on the market at a rapid pace and - sometimes - at a huge cost. Providing access to new health technology is a serious challenge for many countries with mandatory health insurance. This article analyses access to new health technology in Belgium and the Netherlands, using eight concrete examples as a starting point for comparing the two - neighbouring - countries. Contrary to the Netherlands, out-of-pocket payments for new health technology are widely accepted and practiced in Belgium. This difference is largely the result of different regulatory environments. A major difference is the way that entitlements to care are described: closed and explicit in Belgium versus open and non-explicit in the Netherlands. The characteristics of in-kind policies versus reimbursement policies also play a role. Allowing out-of-pocket payments for new health technology has consequences for the patients. It leads to greater access to new health technology (for those who are able and willing to pay), but has a negative effect on equal access to care. Choice and transparency are enhanced by allowing out-of-pocket payments for new health technology. It could be argued that lack of coverage by mandatory health insurance should not render private access to new health technology impossible.