TEConomy Partners recently produced an interesting report titled “Biopharmaceutical Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials: Growing State Economies” that highlights the extent and scope of clinical trial economic influence on individual states. Supported by industry association PhRMA, it provides estimates of industry-sponsored clinical trial activity in each of the 50 states. The report includes the number of active trials, trial participants, the annual direct investment by biopharmaceutical companies to operate the clinical trial sites and the total economic impact resulting from this reported investment. TEConomy Partners also estimated indirect effects that tend to ripple through local economies.
- In 2017 the biopharmaceutical industry (biopharma) sponsored more than 4,500 clinical trials in the U.S. involving close to 1 million participants and all states plus the District of Columbia
- Biopharma spent $15 billion directly in clinical trial sites across the U.S. in 2017. This doesn’t include the significant resource investments in clinical trial-related activities occurring outside of individual sites
- Total economic contribution $43 billion in 2017 (this includes secondary and tertiary impacts).
- The five states with the largest number of active clinical trials
- California 2,152
- Texas 1,989
- Florida 1,735
- New York 1,707
- North Carolina 1,196
- States perceived not to have large biopharma presence have large number of trials (e.g. Ohio and Tennessee)
- Only six states plus Puerto Rico had fewer than 100 trials
Importantly, TEConomy Partners notes that the report focuses only on direct sponsor investments allocated at clinical trial sites, precluding the large spend that occurs ongoing with trial-wide work—e.g. the operational investments industry makes across all sites that can, and does, benefit local economies.
A fascinating piece of research, TrialSite News commends TEConomy Partners and PhRMA for producing and distributing this report. As we at TrialSite News focus on the site as the nexus, or center of clinical research, we find this study refreshing and truly needed. We believe that there are certain assumptions that need vetting. Moreover, we communicate with sites often. We will seek to understand this report through their experiences. For example, industry sponsors are known to include tough terms in contracts for important processes such as payment. Many sites have told us over the years that they feel they need more flexible payment terms for example. As we uncover any relevant information worth publishing we will surely do so.