Prioritizing patients for subsidized psychotherapy is necessary when resources are scarce. In this study, three groups of ten judges each, representing the professional, clinical perspective, the political decision-making perspective, and the layman's perspective, respectively, were given the task of deciding which of fifteen patients on a waiting-list for psychotherapy and psychoanalysis they would recommend for subsidization. Statistical analyses showed similarities between the priorities of laymen and decision-makers, whereas clinicians prioritized the patients differently. The regression weights of patient variables in explaining the groups’ priorities suggest that laymen and decision-makers tend to focus on the urgency of a case from a humanitarian point of view, whereas clinicians try to balance such considerations against the apparent suitability of the case for psychotherapeutic treatment.