OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the public opinion on the issues of distributive justice in health care. From the literature, we can ascertain several principles outlining priority setting decisions –health maximization, fair distribution, and equity. This study aims to identify the principles the public considers important, and the trade-offs between different values in resource allocation practices. METHODS: Two Focus groups were created and discussed a variety of issues on resource allocation in health care. Participants in the groups were introduced to the objective of the project and problems at hand. To facilitate the group discussion, a simple ranking task and a series of pair-wise choice practices were implemented. In the choice scenario, the severity of diseases was represented as both the quality of life and life years remained. All participants were expected to choose one scenario, and explain the underlying reason for their choice. Group discussions were recorded and later analyzed by researchers. RESULTS: Severity of disease was the most important criteria of priority setting for participants. The majority supports the idea that the most disadvantaged should have the highest priority, even though their health gain is less than others. Rare diseases were given high priority because of their severity, not their rareness. Through the focus group interview, we could find a strong public support for the equal opportunity principle. Next to severity of disease, socio-economic status was found to be an important consideration in resource allocation decision. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from the group discussions indicate that the severity of disease and the socio-economic status of the patient is the most important priority setting criteria in the national health insurance setting. To further these results, a discrete choice experiment with ordinary people will be conducted and discussed.