Section 2.a: Relevance and Public Concern

The patient care, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology sectors substantially contribute to economic growth across the states and territories. For patient care, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) notes that national health expenditures increased to 5.3 trillion in 2024, accounting for 18.0% of gross domestic product (GDP) that year. Regarding pharmaceuticals, Towards Healthcare estimates that the American pharmaceutical market size was $520.4 billion in 2025 and expects this to increase to $965 billion by 2035. As for biotechnology, findings from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) indicate that bioscience companies from 2023-2024 employed 2.3 million Americans across 150,000 businesses with a presence in every state. Through induced effects, these 2.3 million employees were estimated to support an additional 8 million jobs. During the same period, the bioscience industry generated about $50.3 billion in state and local tax revenue.

One study by the Institute for Construction Employment Research found that from 2019-2024, 18 states supported the national economy by investing $86.5 billion in biosciences R&D and spearheading more than 1,000 construction projects. The report also noted that the industry’s $86.5 billion investment yielded a total economic impact of $224 billion, and revenues generated from these firms power state and territorial economies. The top ten states in terms of revenue effects from the medical technology industry are California ($56.59 billion), Minnesota ($13.84 billion), Indiana ($13.53 billion), Pennsylvania ($13.37 billion), Texas ($12.68 billion), Massachusetts ($12.49 billion), Florida ($10.42 billion), Utah ($10.35 billion), New Jersey ($9.96 billion), and New York ($8.37 billion).

Beyond economic indicators, public opinion data show that constituents expect government action to improve access, affordability, research investment, and health technology innovation. Findings from Morning Consult and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization show that 84% of Americans support strengthening U.S. biotechnology manufacturing. Also, more broadly, surveys suggest constituents expect government action on patient care and related topics. A Gallup poll found that in the healthcare sector, costs and access were identified by respondents as being among the three most urgent health problems facing the U.S. and they expect government action to address these issues. Research America, likewise, found that 9 in 10 Americans believe it is crucial for the federal government to fund chronic disease and infectious disease research – signaling that constituents expect state governments to take robust policy actions to address these concerns. In July 2025, the Harris Poll and Verily partnered to conduct a health technology survey which revealed that 75% of respondents “would like an app that provides personalized health recommendations from a care provider” and 81% of respondents believe that “easier access to health information would make them feel more in control.” These findings are summarized in the following table:

Section 2.b: State Legislation and Legislators’ Social Media Activity

State legislative activity and public messaging from elected and executive officials together show how policymakers are approaching innovation in patient care, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology. Since Jan. 1, 2025, 50 states and territories have introduced 1,059 bills related to these areas. Common themes across these measures include healthcare workforce mobility, economic growth through biotechnology investment, and improved care quality for individuals living with chronic illnesses.

Of these 1,059 introduced bills, 194 have been enacted or are effective. The following examples of enacted legislative bills offer insights into the diverse approaches that states have taken to address issues related to innovation in patient care, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology. OK S.B. 552 (2025) places guardrails on biotechnology innovation by prohibiting state agencies that receive federal or state funds from using biotechnology equipment originating from a company identified by the federal government as a biotechnology company of concern. NJ S. 2990 (2025) regulates the provision of pharmaceutical services in long-term care facilities, and AK H.B. 1183 (2025) creates the Registered Dialysis Patient Care Technician Act. This table provides additional examples of enacted legislation related to innovation in patient care, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology.

Analysis of state executive branch officials and legislators’ social media mentions provides greater insights on how they gauge public sentiment and what policies they are prioritizing. Since Jan. 1, 2025, and as of March 12, 2026, there have been 725 social media posts (X tweets and Facebook posts) related to innovation in the three areas from officials in 48 states and territories. Regarding examples of relevant social media mentions, Governor Daniel McKee (RI) posted about Amgen’s role in creating good paying jobs and innovative biotechnology products in the Ocean State; Sen. Kyle Walker (R-IN-031) posted about welcoming 1Elevan Biopharmaceuticals to Fishers, Indiana; and Rep. Tangie Herring (D-GA-145) posted about visiting Monroe County Hospital and noting how the hospital has set new records for patient care. The top ten states for total social media posts are New York (58), North Carolina (41), Massachusetts (40), Pennsylvania (38), California (34), Texas (34), New Hampshire (32), Rhode Island (29), New Jersey (27), and Florida (19). By CSG Region, there were a total of 261 social media mentions from CSG East, 164 from CSG South, 88 from CSG West, and 73 from CSG Midwest.

Section 2.c: Providing Quality Patient Care for Constituents

Quality patient care plays a significant role in determining the health outcomes of states’ constituents, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) noting that three in four American adults have at least one chronic condition. With chronic conditions impacting many American adults, states stand to benefit from prioritizing access to quality patient care for their constituents and can do so through two primary approaches.

One approach states can adopt is multi-sector collaboration, which is often required by the capital-intensive and complex nature of pharmaceutical and biotechnology research that contributes to better patient care outcomes. This collaboration can take forms ranging from public-industry partnerships (e.g., state collaboration with bioscience companies), state government-supported partnerships such as university-industry collaborations (e.g., technology licensing agreements), and inter-company alliances (e.g., pharmaceutical companies and emerging biotech firms teaming up to foster new biotechnologies). For example, the New York State Life Science Initiative Fund involves collaboration between the state and life science companies, the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center supports university-industry collaboration, and the North Carolina Research Triangle Park facilitates joint R&D initiatives between large national companies and smaller local firms.

Another approach states can adopt is capitalizing on the latest advances in medical informatics, lab testing, medical imaging, and new drug developments to improve patient care for constituents, as shown by the following state cases: The Statewide Health Information Network for New York enables real-time sharing of patient records between hospitals and improves continuity of care for New York state citizens. The Public Health Laboratories in Shoreline, Washington, provides disease surveillance through advanced laboratory techniques, raising hospitals’ preparedness to deal with outbreaks and thus enhancing patient care for state residents. The Department of Health Services in Wisconsin published a Telestroke Toolkit which helps in-state hospitals with standardizing their imaging workflows and increases the efficiency of patient care delivery.

As states formulate strategies to elevate patient care quality and promote economic growth in their pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, they often face a complex set of policy trade-offs. For example, a state may weigh whether the benefits of attracting out-of-state biotechnology investment through tax credits outweigh the potential drawbacks of reduced tax revenues. Or a state may consider whether the benefits of developing a biotech ecosystem clustered in one urban hub outweigh the disadvantages arising from increased regional inequality. While successful state biotechnology and pharmaceutical policies can lead to the creation of stable jobs and economic growth, challenges remain (e.g., building infrastructure and attracting investment). The trajectory of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors will vary by state, shaping the quality of patient care in each state.