OBJECTIVES: To assess preferences for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) funding criteria of a large sample of Australians broadly reflecting the population of Queensland, Australia. METHODS: Adults (n=930) were recruited via an internet panel managed by a market research company. Participation quotas broadly reflected the Queensland population by gender and age.  Participants completed a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) as part of a wider survey on HTA decision criteria. Attributes/levels were based on criteria used in Queensland and a literature review. An orthogonal design (72 choice sets) was used, with participants randomized to one block of 6 sets. Choice data were analysed using a multinomial logit model. RESULTS: Participants strongly preferred a technology offering prevention or early diagnosis, and less strongly preferred one that improves quality of life, reduces side effects, or reduces hospital waiting times, compared to technologies improving survival by one year. Participants also strongly preferred treating 35yr old recipients, followed by 10yr olds and then 60yr olds, rather than 85yr olds. Technologies that assist Queenslanders living in rural areas, those providing value for money, those with no available alternative, and technologies assisting indigenous Australians were also prioritised over their counterparts. However, all these advantages were considered relatively less important than achieving prevention or early diagnosis, which equated to approximately double the other gains when marginal rates of substitution were calculated using number benefiting as the denominator. CONCLUSIONS: If consistency with public preferences is a requirement for “fair” HTA decision-making criteria, this study provides broad support for criteria used to assess technologies in Queensland. The findings send a clear message of the importance of prevention and early diagnosis as compared to treatment of existing disease from the public’s perspective.