The reduction in National Health Service (NHS) expenditure as a share of total health care expenditure, the fragmentation of the NHS into 21 regional systems and the implementation of a 'quasi-market' on the provider side of the system has pressed the government to define and specify, in detail, the set of services that are to be guaranteed by the public sector. To understand whether rationing can be more rational and explicit in the Italian NHS, the following are analysed: (i) the new positive list of drugs, as a major example of limiting and making more rational NHS pharmaceutical coverage; (ii) the Di Bella case, as an example of the difficulties of rational policy-making on sensitive issues; (iii) what Italian people think about health care rationing and priority setting (using the 1998 Eurobarometer Survey);( iv) the criteria defining the set of 'essential services' to be guaranteed to all Italian citizens, which are contained in the recently released National Health Plan. The 'revolution' that has taken place in the pharmaceutical sector shows it is feasible to limit, in an explicit and rational way, the extent of NHS coverage. However, the re-classification of the positive list should be regarded as an exceptional event in the history of Italian social policy. The 'Di Bella' case, on the contrary, shows that limiting NHS coverage can be very unpopular, and that the Italian cultural and social context can be unfavourable for the implementation of hard choices. Public attitude toward rationing seems to confirm that Italians are not familiar with rationing issues. Thus, it is very difficult to predict whether the national government will really go ahead with the implementation of a 'list of essential services' and whether this attempt will be successful. Rationing and priority setting should be discussed in the context of a general debate concerning the future of the Italian NHS.