Domestic and global trends indicate that there is a need for investment in health infrastructure. Although in the recent years, large investments have been made in this area in the country, delay and cost overrun, unfinished projects and in some cases redundant facilities denote a problem. Given the experience in the world and comparative studies and case studies, public-private partnership investment models were considered. The success of these models depend on several factors, among them is a good design.  With regard to the conditions and presuppositions, three different models were examined: Model type 1 for situations where it is difficult to detect and monitor the quality of health services provided; model type 2 for situations in which there is a possibility to monitor the quality of the health services; And model type 3 for situations where charitable endowment resources are available. We use Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) to prioritize the mentioned models. We use criteria of value for money to benefit from expert judgment which includes: optimal risk transfer, the lifecycle cost, performance and innovation in infrastructure. We have also designed an innovative questionnaire for this purpose. Despite the different criteria in the evaluation, assessment results are very close to each other and no significant differences were evaluated. This conclusion is consistent with our hypothesis: according to the conditions and the importance of criteria to evaluate, we should decide which of models is more fitted and therefore different results can be considered.