Background: Decision-making in older adults with multiple morbidities often involves difficult trade-offs because the treatment of one condition may worsen another. This is exemplified in patients with coexisting hypertension and fall risk syndrome, where optimizing treatment of hypertension increases the risk of fall-related injuries. It is likely that participants with multiple morbidities vary in their priorities when faced with the need to select among competing outcomes. Purpose: To determine whether there is inter-individual variability in the priority given to cardiovascular and fall-related outcomes among elderly persons with coexisting hypertension and fall risk syndrome given that both sets of outcomes cannot be simultaneously optimized. Methods: English speaking adults, aged 70 and over, with hypertension were recruited from 16 senior independent housing facilities. Exclusion criteria were: cognitive impairment, complete functional dependence, and anticoagulation therapy. We administered a Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis task to elicit subjects' priorities. The task included three attributes: “heart attack or stroke”, “fall and fracture or head injury”, and “fatigue or dizziness” to reflect possible medication adverse events. We created two versions of the questionnaire to account for ordering effects. Results: 182 subjects participated in this study; mean (± SD) age was 81 (± 6); 28% were male; 72% Caucasian; and 81% had at least a high school education. Ninety-six subjects completed version A and 86 completed version B. No ordering effects were observed. Participants' prioritized preventing stroke over the risk of adverse effects. The relative importance assigned to heart attack/stroke was 51 ± 18; fatigue / dizziness 30 ± 16; and fall injury 23 ± 13. However, the large standard deviations indicate significant inter-individual variability. Subjects' values predict that 58% of participants in this study would choose aggressive therapy for hypertension based on a priority assigned to preventing cardiovascular outcomes; whereas the remainder (i.e. 42%) would accept less control of their blood pressure in order to reduce the risk of adverse effects and fall injury. Conclusion: Because it is impossible to maximize the benefits across all conditions when optimizing the outcome for one condition involves the risk of worsening the outcome for the other condition, decision-making should be based on maximizing the likelihood that health outcomes meet individual patient priorities.