A477value-based pricing, which reflects disease burden, therapeutic innovation, and social values, is suggested. This study attempts to measure the importance of costeffectiveness and other values for a new anticancer drug. Methods: Through literature reviews and experts' advices, eight health insurance benefit criteria were selected: disease severity, size of population affected by disease, pediatric medicine, alternative drugs, innovativeness, clinical benefit, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact. Preference for the criteria was investigated by using Discrete Choice Experiments(DCE), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), swing weighting (SWING), and direct point allocation (DIRECT). The survey was conducted in three hundred general population through face to face interview. Respondents were selected using stratified random sampling by age, sex and region. The conditional logistic regression for DCE was conducted with STATA ver.12. Results: In the preference investigation using DCE, people preferentially considered disease severity (OR: 1.837, 95% CI: 1.673 to 2.017), alternative drugs (OR: 1.556, 95% CI: 1.458 to 1.661), and size of population affected by disease (OR: 1.408, 95% CI: 1.285 to 1.543). According to the results by using AHP, respondents considered clinical benefit to be the most important, followed by cost-effectiveness and disease severity as the main evaluation items. As estimated by SWING and DIRECT, clinical benefit was also evaluated as the most important item. There was no difference in the first to third priority evaluation items between SWING and DIRECT. ConClusions: The priorities derived from all methodologies show that clinical benefit and disease severity were more important than cost-effectiveness in general terms. In the situation where decision-making is mostly centered on cost-effectiveness, our results may be seen as the social demand that clinical benefit and the influence of applicable disease should be reflected appropriately in the insurance coverage.