OBJECTIVES: The healthcare sector is evolving while life expectancy is increasing. These trends put greater pressure on resources, prompt reforms, and demand transparent arguments and criteria to assess the overall value of health interventions. Besides (cost) effectiveness, many criteria play a role when determining the value of interventions. There is no consensus on the core arguments. This study aimed at retrieving the most widely recognized arguments used in making decisions about patient treatments and prioritizing interventions, and to compile a smaller set that would seem most relevant to different stakeholders. METHODS: A landscape review was performed in Medline and EMBASE. Initial search retrieved over 2000 articles. After a selection based on reference to healthcare, policy issues, or social justice, 64 papers were included. Data were extracted and a full table was made, including all arguments found; next, identical or largely overlapping criteria were excluded and a reduced set was compiled. RESULTS: The final set included 26 arguments, categorized by type (clinical, social justice, ethical, and policy). Examples of arguments included in the final set are: Longevity, need, dignity and public health value. For each argument, relevance to stakeholders was scored on three levels (not, partly, and completely relevant). CONCLUSIONS: Many arguments play a role in making decisions about patient treatments, but not all are relevant to all interventions. Moreover, they may interact with each other. Therefore, systematic and analytical approaches such as multi-criteria decision analysis may be not suitable. As such, a viable way to deal with interacting and possibly conflicting arguments might be to arrange public discussions that would evoke different stakeholders’ perspectives.