Objective: In several countries, decision makers apply economic evaluations for decisions about reimbursing new drugs or technologies. But there seem to be many other factors, besides cost-effectiveness that play a role in such decisions. The purpose of this study was to test if a conjoint analysis method can be applied to elicit the factors that are most decisive to people of the working population in decisions about reimbursement. Methods: A survey was addressed to 150 members of the working population, whereby virtual new drugs were presented two by two, according to 5 attributes: 1) drug price; 2)target population size; 3) patient age; 4) life expectancy after treatment; and 5) quality of life before and after treatment. Respondents had to indicate every time if they preferred drug A or drug B to be reimbursed, whereby drugs differed on several attributes (traditional conjoint analysis). Respondents also had to spread ten points over the two drugs (allocation of points technique). Results: The survey was completed by 122 individuals. The top three of most influencing factors in the conjoint analysis were the age of the patients, the price of the drug and the quality of life before and after treatment. MRS (marginal rate of substitution) for Age/Price =1.067, MRS Age/Quality of life = 1.172, MRS Age/Life expectancy = 1.434, MRS Age/Population 1.344, MRS Price/Quality of life = 1.098, MRS Price/Life expectancy = 1.344, MRS Price/Population size = 1.560, MRS Quality of life/Life expectancy = 1.223, MRS Quality of life/Population size = 1.421, MRS Life expectancy/ Population size = 1.162. The allocation of points technique provided similar results. Conclusion: Both the conjoint analysis method and the allocation of points technique are possible techniques to elicit preferences of the working population. The allocation of points techniques allows for more fine-tuning of preferences.