Skip to main content

Medical Device Companies in Texas - Breakdown by City

In a previous post I described the geographic distribution of pharmaceutical companies within Texas. I went back to the same directory of Texas-based pharmaceutical and medical device companies [see disclaimer below, *] and, this time, took a look at the geographic distribution of companies working in medical devices. The list [see technical note below, **] contains a total of 171 medical device companies - almost twice the number of pharmaceutical companies listed. Here is how they are geographically distributed: 


The number in each wedge = the number of medical device companies in that city. "Other" consists of Bryan/College Station (4 companies), Athens (3), Corpus Christi (2), El Paso (2), Amarillo (1), Beaumont/Port Arthur (1), Longview (1), Lubbock (1), Midland(1), Mineral Wells (1), and Waco (1).

As with pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies were heavily concentrated in the four largest metropolitan areas of Texas - Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio and Austin. However, Austin clearly comes out on top - by a pretty large margin, in fact. This is in stark contrast to the in-state distribution of pharmaceutical companies, in which they come in at third place. Now, the directory contains a disclaimer stating that it is not intended to be an exhaustive list [see note below, *], so these rankings should be considered a rough estimate at best. Still, these numbers beg the question: what might account for Austin's particular prowess in the medical device sector? 


- Isamu Hartman, PhD


------------------------------------

* I just noticed the following disclaimer within the directory: "The company listings in this directory are provided as a broad, representative sample of Texas companies in three major areas of the biotechnology industry. This directory is not a comprehensive source of all biotechnology or health-related companies in the state. Due to space limitations, the Office of the Governor Economic Development and Tourism division is unable to include all relevant firms in this document." Thus, whatever interpretations I make based on it should be considered a rough estimation at best.

** Technical note: the "Medical Devices and Instruments" list within the 2012 Texas Biotechnology Company Directory contains a total of 218 companies; however, those companies were classified under one of three different categories: Medical Devices, Medical Equipment & Supplies, and Biological Products. For the figure shown here, I generated and used an edited list that consists only of companies classified as "Medical Devices." This list (in Excel format) can be downloaded here.





Comments

  1. Wonderful post. Medical device companies not consistent with 21 CFR Part 820, and other material regulations, make themselves powerless against FDA implementation hones. The unreliable part is that the FDA doesn't let you know how to work as an agreeable companies. You have the adaptability to execute the essential methodologies to fulfill the appropriate regulations and help them with your agreeability drills. Nonetheless, you're relied upon to completely comprehend the plan of the regulations and meet those desires paying little heed to your size and assets. thanks all~ Barbara W.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Medical equipment & supplies are needed by basically two main groups of consumers - doctors, medical professionals and lab technicians, and those who require, or are in the position to provide, constant in-home medical care.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good information. This text about medical device companies in Texas showed how medical devices are important. Review is really interesting. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Corporate Venture Capital at the Top 10 Pharma/Biotech Companies

Today I'm taking a step outside of Texas and looking at the world. Many large pharmaceutical and biotech firms maintain venture capital operations through which they invest in early-stage biomedical companies. I wanted to get a sense of what these biopharma corporate venture capital (CVC) funds are up to. Which companies have CVC funds? How active are they? What are their goals? What are they investing in? Background: general and sector-specific trends in venture capital In 2014 venture capital funding in the U.S. hit its highest annual mark since 2001, as investors participated in $47.3 billion across 3,617 deals . Within this trend Life Sciences was the second largest sector (behind only the Media and Entertainment sector) for 2014 in dollar terms with $8.6 billion invested in 789 deals, the highest level since 2007 . Corporate venture funding has followed similar trends:  2014 marked the strongest year for CVC activity since 2000 with $5.4 billion invested in U.S.-based co

The Big Fish: Texas-Based Biomedical Companies listed on NYSE and NASDAQ

[Monday, 22 April 2013:  I added Hanger Inc. (HGR, NYSE), an Austin-based prosthetics and orthotics company I had originally missed, to the list] [Thursday, 02 May 2013:  fixed the location of Hanger Inc. (HGR, NYSE) - changed from Dallas to Austin] I have another few posts coming up on Texas-based awardees of the SBIR program. But first, a quick digression. +Levi Shapiro  asked me the following question during a phone conversation we had earlier today:  who are the "Big Players" in the Texas biomedical industry that are listed in the major stock exchanges? I knew about Luminex (LMNX, NASDAQ) off the top of my head. Other than that, though, I really had no idea. Following the advice of +Lauren Nise  , I used LexisNexis (courtesy of the UT Dallas Eugene McDermott Library ) to generate a list of publicly traded biomedical companies headquartered in Texas that are listed in either NYSE or NASDAQ. Here are the companies I found: (Open spreadsheet as a separate page  h

Developing Software: What Should Academic Researchers Keep in Mind? (Part 2)

In Part 1   of this essay, I discussed three learning points I'd gained from my encounters with faculty-developed software in my work as a technology transfer officer at an academic medical research institution. Those points were as follows:  Patents aren't a necessary prerequisite for commercializing software Be deliberate in your use of third-party code If you are going to release your source code publicly, consider doing it under a restrictive open source license When I finished writing it, I knew I had more to say on the topic. You can read Part 1 here . Below is my continuation. 4 - Figuring out the ‘thing’ that’s going to be licensed An important part of handing off a software-based technology from university to private industry is to first figure out exactly what is being handed off. This can be tricky! I’ve discovered that software, as a commercial asset, can take many forms. The licensing professional can bring a lot of clarity to the negotiations by making sure both t