Background & Objectives: Korea is face with the social need for health care tech-nology assessment so that it is urgently needed to found principles and methodology in tec-hnology assessment in health care. As a groundwork for health care technology assess-ment, we tried to prioritize medical technology for assessment. Among medical technol-ogies, procedure is somewhat difficult to assess, compared to drug or equipment. In this study, we aimed at the prioritisation of medical procedure to be assessed, in terms of effi-cay, safety, and adequacy. Method: For the standardized classification of medical procedure, ICD-9-CM(Inter-national Classification of Diseases 9th edition - Clinical Modification) was used. Among the list the procedures coming under otorhinolaringology and thoracic surgery were selec-ted by three family physicians. The list of procedure was mailed to the board certified sur-geons of both disciplines, with the question asking about the necessity for assessment in terms of efficacy, safety, and adequacy. Replied questionnaires were analyzed in each pro-cedure. Results: Of 560 otorhinolaryngologist and 480 thoracic surgeon, 114 surgeons replied. Of otorhinolaryngological procedure, incision, excision, and destruction of inner ear: fen-estration of inner ear: stapedectomy and its revision were the most urgent technology to assess in the aspect of safety. For adequacy, operations on Eustachian tube: fenestration of inner ear: incision, excision, and destruction of inner ear were highly ranked in necess-ity, and for efficary, operations on Eustachian tube; external maxillary antrotomy; fen-estration of inner ear. Thoracic surgeons replied thoracic procedures, lung transplant-tation; heart transplantation; implantation of heart assist system [pump] are most im-portant for evaluation in terms of safety; and heart transplantation; Lung transplant-tation; Implantation of heart assist system [pump] in terms of adequacy, and surgical col-lapse of lung [Artificial pnemothorax or pnuemoperitoeum]; lung transplantation; periar-terial sympathectomy in terms of efficacy. As a whole, surgeons regard safety evaluation is more urgent than adequacy or efficacy. In addition, otorhinolaryngological surgeons re-gard evaluation of their procedures more urgent than thoracic surgeons regard theirs. Conclusion: By the questionnaire to board certified physicians, we get some prelimi-nary data for prioritisation of technologies to assess. Through the questionnaire like this, much information would be gathered for technology assessment, especially for medical procedure, if not enough. In the near future, well structured expert opinion gathering re-search, such as modified Delphi or nominal group technique, should be done succeedingly.