OBJECTIVES:To assess the impact of a cost attribute on preferences for a surgical treatment, in particular Surgical Excision (SE) and Mohs Micrographic Surgery (MMS), to remove primary Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC). METHODS:Six attributes (recurrence, re-excision, travel time, surgical time, waiting time surgical results, costs) and their levels were selected, based on results of a clinical trial, a cost-effectiveness study, a review and a focus group of patients who recently had received treatment for BCC. Two DCEs, one without (DCE_nocost) and one with a cost attribute (DCE_cost) were conducted among the general public. Outcomes of both DCEs were compared in terms of theoretical validity, relative importance of the attributes and the rank order of preferences. RESULTS: Except for travel time in DCE_nocost, respondents in both DCEs valued a surgical treatment with a lower level for all the selected attributes. Differences in ordering of attribute importance occurred with the attribute waiting time surgical results which was third in DCE_nocost and ended as last in DCE_cost. The incremental utility score for DCE_nocost was 1.497 while the incremental willingness to pay for DCE_cost amounted to € 847 in DCE_cost, both indicating a preference of MMS to SE. CONCLUSIONS: From a policy perspective, results show that the inclusion of a cost-variable does not change the rank order of preferences for a surgical treatment to remove BCC. However, the results of our comparison are specific to the clinical setting of primary BCC and the surgical procedures MMS and SE. Further research within different settings will be needed to confirm our findings.