OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to elicit public preference for drug reimbursement criteria in Korea’s universal health insurance system using three commonly used weighting methods in Multi-Criteria Decision-Analysis (MCDA).  METHODS: Based on literature review, we established five criteria in drugs reimbursement decision-making: disease impacts, context of reimbursement, improvement of health outcomes, economics and quality of evidence. We evaluated the relative importance of five criteria using three weighting methods of direct rating (DR), SWING and analytic hierarchy process (AHP). 283 people were selected across the country by quota sampling and asked to assess the weights of five criteria with all three weighting methods repeatedly. The survey was self-administered by the participants with help of the trained interviewers.  RESULTS: It was revealed that improvement of health outcomes and disease impacts have relatively higher weights than other three criteria in all weighting methods. Survey participants considered improvement of health outcomes the most important with DR (Mean [SD]: 0.210 [0.033]) and AHP (0.271 [0.127]), whereas disease impacts with SWING (0.231 [0.050]). Meanwhile, no coherence was shown in the low-ranked three criteria (context of reimbursement, economics, and quality of evidence) over three weighting methods. Quality of evidence ranked the third with DR (0.200 [0.035]), the fifth with SWING (0.165 [0.041]) and the fourth with AHP (0.160 [0.121]). Economics ranked the fourth with DR (0.197 [0.035]) and the third with SWING (0.192 [0.045]) and AHP (0.207 [0.118]). Lastly, context of reimbursement ranked the fifth with DR (0.188 [0.035]) and AHP (0.112 [0.090]) and the fourth with SWING (0.189 [0.045]). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, it was discovered that the survey participants considered improvement of health outcomes and disease impacts relatively more important than economics, context of reimbursement and quality of evidence in drug reimbursement decision making.