The 2023-2028 Outlook for Biobanking in the United States

October 2022 | 502 pages | ID: 2F239D71C8B9EN
ICON Group International

Abstracts

This study covers the latent demand outlook for biobanking across the states and cities of the United States. Latent demand (in millions of U.S. dollars), or potential industry earnings (P.I.E.) estimates are given across some 12,600 cities in the United States. For each city in question, the percent share the city is of its state and of the United States as a whole is reported. These comparative benchmarks allow the reader to quickly gauge a city vis-à-vis others. This statistical approach can prove very useful to distribution and/or sales force strategies. Using econometric models which project fundamental economic dynamics within each state and city, latent demand estimates are created for biobanking. This report does not discuss the specific players in the market serving the latent demand, nor specific details at the product level. The study also does not consider short-term cyclicalities that might affect realized sales. The study, therefore, is strategic in nature, taking an aggregate and long-run view, irrespective of the players or products involved.

In this report we define the sales of biobanking as including all commonly understood products and/or services falling within this broad category, irrespective of product packaging, formulation, size, or form. Companies participating in this industry include Agilent Technologies, ASKION, Autogen, Avantor, BD, Beckman Coulter, Becton, BioCision, Biogenea Pharmaceuticals, BioKryo, BioLife Solutions, BioRep SRL, BioStorage Technologies, Biovault, Brooks Automation, Cell&Co BioServices, Charles River, Chart Industries, China Cord Blood, Cord Blood America, CORE Informatics, Cryo Bio System, CTI Biotech, Cureline, Danaher, Dickinson and Company, DNA Genotek, Excilone SARL, Firalis SA, Fisher BioServices, Fluidx, Greiner, Hamilton, IBBL, Isenet Biobanking, Labvantage Solutions, LGC, LifebankUSA, Lonza Group, LVL Technologies, Medizinische Universit?t Graz, Merck KGaA, MICRONIC, Modul-Bio, Panasonic Healthcare, PHC Holdings, PreAnalytiX GmbH, PrecisionMed, Inc., ProMedDx, Promega Corporation, PromoCell, Qiagen, RUCDR Infinite Biologics, Seralab, Shanghai Zhangjiang Biobank, Sigma-Aldrich, SOL Group, STEMCELL Technologies, StemLife, Taylor-Wharton, Tecan Group, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Tissue Solutions, TTP Labtech, UK Biobank, ViaCord, Virgin Health Bank, VWR, and Worthington Industries. In addition to the sources indicated, additional information available to the public via news and/or press releases published by players in the industry was considered in defining and calibrating this category. All figures are in a common currency (U.S. dollars, millions) and are not adjusted for inflation (i.e., they are current values). Exchange rates used to convert to U.S. dollars are averages for the year in question. Future exchange rates are assumed to be constant in the future at the current level (the average of the year of this publication's release in 2022).

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW
1.2 WHAT IS LATENT DEMAND AND THE P.I.E.?
1.3 THE METHODOLOGY
  1.3.1 STEP 1. PRODUCT DEFINITION AND DATA COLLECTION
  1.3.2 STEP 2. FILTERING AND SMOOTHING
  1.3.3 STEP 3. FILLING IN MISSING VALUES
  1.3.4 STEP 4. VARYING PARAMETER, NON-LINEAR ESTIMATION
  1.3.5 STEP 5. FIXED-PARAMETER LINEAR ESTIMATION
  1.3.6 STEP 6. AGGREGATION AND BENCHMARKING
1.4 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
  1.4.1 CATEGORY DEFINITION
  1.4.2 UNITS
  1.4.3 METHODOLOGY

2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

2.1 LATENT DEMAND IN THE UNITED STATES
2.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES
2.3 TOP 100 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES

3 FAR WEST

3.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ALASKA
3.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ALASKA
3.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - CALIFORNIA
3.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - CALIFORNIA
3.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - HAWAII
3.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - HAWAII
3.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEVADA
3.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEVADA
3.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OREGON
3.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - OREGON
3.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WASHINGTON
3.13 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WASHINGTON

4 GREAT LAKES

4.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ILLINOIS
4.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ILLINOIS
4.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - INDIANA
4.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - INDIANA
4.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MICHIGAN
4.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MICHIGAN
4.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OHIO
4.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - OHIO
4.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WISCONSIN
4.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WISCONSIN

5 MID-ATLANTIC

5.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - DELAWARE
5.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - DELAWARE
5.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
5.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
5.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MARYLAND
5.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MARYLAND
5.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW JERSEY
5.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW JERSEY
5.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW YORK
5.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW YORK
5.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - PENNSYLVANIA
5.13 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - PENNSYLVANIA

6 NEW ENGLAND

6.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - CONNECTICUT
6.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - CONNECTICUT
6.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MAINE
6.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MAINE
6.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MASSACHUSETTS
6.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MASSACHUSETTS
6.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW HAMPSHIRE
6.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW HAMPSHIRE
6.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - RHODE ISLAND
6.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - RHODE ISLAND
6.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - VERMONT
6.13 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - VERMONT

7 PLAINS

7.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - IOWA
7.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - IOWA
7.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - KANSAS
7.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - KANSAS
7.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MINNESOTA
7.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MINNESOTA
7.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MISSOURI
7.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MISSOURI
7.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEBRASKA
7.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEBRASKA
7.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NORTH DAKOTA
7.13 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NORTH DAKOTA
7.14 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - SOUTH DAKOTA
7.15 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - SOUTH DAKOTA

8 ROCKIES

8.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
8.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - COLORADO
8.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - COLORADO
8.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - IDAHO
8.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - IDAHO
8.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MONTANA
8.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MONTANA
8.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - UTAH
8.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - UTAH
8.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WYOMING
8.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WYOMING

9 SOUTHEAST

9.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
9.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ALABAMA
9.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ALABAMA
9.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ARKANSAS
9.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ARKANSAS
9.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - FLORIDA
9.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - FLORIDA
9.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - GEORGIA
9.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - GEORGIA
9.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - KENTUCKY
9.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - KENTUCKY
9.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - LOUISIANA
9.13 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - LOUISIANA
9.14 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MISSISSIPPI
9.15 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MISSISSIPPI
9.16 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NORTH CAROLINA
9.17 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NORTH CAROLINA
9.18 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - SOUTH CAROLINA
9.19 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - SOUTH CAROLINA
9.20 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - TENNESSEE
9.21 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - TENNESSEE
9.22 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - VIRGINIA
9.23 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - VIRGINIA
9.24 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WEST VIRGINIA
9.25 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WEST VIRGINIA

10 SOUTHWEST

10.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ARIZONA
10.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ARIZONA
10.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW MEXICO
10.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW MEXICO
10.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OKLAHOMA
10.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - OKLAHOMA
10.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - TEXAS
10.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - TEXAS

11 DISCLAIMERS, WARRANTIES, AND USER AGREEMENT PROVISIONS

11.1 DISCLAIMERS & SAFE HARBOR
11.2 ICON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. USER AGREEMENT PROVISIONS