Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285791187
label
Invitations: Speech (1) [5 of 11] [1991]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285791187
contentType
document
title
Invitations: Speech (1) [5 of 11] [1991]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
62016-005
collections
Records of the White House Office of Science and Technology (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Allan D. Bromley Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285791187
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e8b91398ff1a0241
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
foia Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
Correspondence Files
OA/ID Number:
62016
Folder ID Number:
62016-005
Folder Title:
Invitations: Speech (1) [5 of 11] [1991]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
0
"INVITATION FOR DR. BROMLEY"
TYPE: INVITATION-SPEECH
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
9121252
SPEECH:
YES
NO
FROM:
GRAY, Paul E.: MIT
DATE OF EVENT: 05/31/91
LOCATION OF EVENT: MIT, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
TIME OF EVENT: 04:30PM
SUBJECT:
INVITATION TO GIVE THE CLOSING LECTURE AT A TWO-DAY
SYMPOSIUM HONORING VANNEVAR BUSH.
RSVP:
05/13/91
CONTACT PERSON: PROF. HARVEY SAPOLSKY
CONTACT NUMBER:
INVITATION ACCEPTED?
NO
COPIES TO:
REMARKS:
Marian nice write one say will since I be think aut of DAB country knows She Make Gray Basya
DATE OF LETTER:
04/23/91
DATE RECEIVED: 04/29/91
FILE: P. INVITATION - Speech
9121252
MASSACHUSETTS
RECEIVED
91 APR 29 P12 11
INSTITUTE OF
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CORPORATION
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
ROOM 5-205, 77 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE
TELEPHONE 617-253-4665
OFFICE THE
DIRECTOR
April 23, 1991
Dr. Allan Bromley
Special Assistant for Science and Technology
to the President
The White House
Washington, DC 20506
Dear Allan:
I would like to invite you to give the closing lecture at a two-day
symposium honoring Vannevar Bush that MIT is holding May 30-31, 1991.
The symposium which is part of the inaugural series for MIT's new
president, Charles Vest, has as its theme "Remembering the Past and
Shaping the Future of American Science Policy." The session you would
give is scheduled for Friday, May 31, 1991, at 4:30 p.m. and will be open to
the MIT community. It would be followed by a private reception and dinner
if that is convenient for you.
Vannevar Bush did so much to establish the policies that have guided
the development of American science and technology over the last 50 years.
Inevitably though these policies will change. We are hoping that you will
describe some of the changes the administration prefers.
Attached is a program outline for the symposium. Professor Harvey
Sapolsky is coordinating the event. He will call your office in a few days to
determine whether or not you can participate.
Sincerely yours,
Sharl
Paul E. Gray
PEG:fg
Enclosure
President Charles M. Vest Inauguration Series
THE VANNEVAR BUSH CENTENNIAL SYMPOSIUM
Remembering the Past and
Shaping the Future of American Science Policy
Sponsored by
The MIT Defense and Arms Control Studies Program
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
May 30-31, 1991
VANNEVAR BUSH SYMPOSIUM
As one of the activities marking the inauguration of Charles
Vest as President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the
MIT Defense and Arms Control Studies Program is arranging a
symposium on May 30-31, 1991, to commemorate the science policy
contributions of Vannevar Bush. the symposium is entitled
"Remembering the Past and Shaping the Future of American Science
Policy" and is intended to describe the system of government-
science relations that Bush helped establish and to chart the
significant changes that system is currently undergoing.
The official leader of American science and engineering during
the Second World War, Bush helped formulate the policies that have
guided engineering education, the federal government's support of
basic research, and the generation and utilization of technical
knowledge for America's military and industry since then. In all
of these fields, Bush sought to shape the future. The Bush
Centennial Year, slightly elongated, provides opportunity to
reflect on his initiatives and to consider what needs to be done
today if the policy challenges of the future are to be met.
Bush had a life of considerable achievement. He invented or
helped invent several precursors to modern computers, a justifying
typewriter, a phototypesetting machine, submarine detection
1
devices, and anti-aircraft fire control mechanisms. As director
of the Office of Scientific Research and Development during the
Second World War, he supervised the atomic bomb project, the
development of radar, and hundreds of other contributions of
science and engineering to victory. Bush helped found the firm
that evolved into the Raytheon Corporation and served on several
corporate boards, including Merck and Company, where he became
Chairman, and AT&T. At M.I.T. he was Professor of Electrical
Engineering, the first Dean of Engineering, Vice President,
Chairman and Honorary Chairman of the Corporation. His
contribution to government in addition to his wartime service
included chairmanship of the National Advisory Committee on
Aeronautics and offering recommendations that led to the
establishment of the National Science Foundation.
2
VANNEVAR BUSH SYMPOSIUM
May 30-31, 1991
Program
May 30
Introduction
9 a.m.
Charles M. Vest
Welcome
MIT President
Howard Johnson
Bush and MIT
MIT
David Hamburg
Science Policy from
President,
Bush to Bush and
Carnegie Corporation
Beyond
Session I:
The Civilian Role in Military R & D
Jack Ruina
Chair
MIT
Harold Sorenson
Vice President,
MITRE
Michael Dennis
National Air and Space
Museum
Alex Roland
Duke University
Rod Nichols
Carnegie Commission
Lunch
MIT Faculty Club
*
Dennis J. Picard
Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Raytheon
Walter Rosenblith
MIT
3
May 30
2-4 p.m.
Session II:
National Policy for Basic Research
Carl Kaysen
Chair
MIT
Daniel J. Kevles
California Institute
of Technology
David Robinson
Carnegie Commission
Harvey M. Sapolsky
MIT
Bruce Smith
Brookings Institution
Dinner
MIT Museum
Mitch Kapor
"As We May Think"
Formerly, Lotus
Charles M. Vest
MIT President
Jay Keyser
MIT
4
May 31 10 a.m. - Noon
Session III: Private and International Sponsorship of R & D
Michael Dertouzos
Chair
MIT
Michael Schrage
LA Times/Washington Post
Robert Reich
Kennedy School
Suzanne Berger
MIT
Eugene Skolnikoff
MIT
Lunch
MIT Faculty Club
*
P. Roy Vagelos
Chief Executive Officer,
Merck
Lester Thurow, Host
Dean, MIT School of Management
May 31 2-4 p.m.
Session IV:
Designing Engineering Education for the Future
Joel Moses
Chair
Dean, MIT School
of Engineering
Gordon Brown
retired Dean, MIT
Paul Penfield
MIT
Granger Morgan
Carnegie Mellon
Kent Bowen
MIT
5
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INVITATION-SPEECH
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121216
FROM:
MARCHESE, Jim: UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EAU CLAIRE
715/832-0301
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
July
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 04/17/91
Eau Claire, Wisc.
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A KEYNOTE SPEAKER WITH A THEME OF
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION TO EXCITE YOUNG
PEOPLE TO PURSUE SCIENCE AS A CAREER.
ASSIGNED TO: D. Allan Bromley
ACTION REQUIRED:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
05/07/91
DATE COMPLETED: 6/3/91
COPIES TO: Thomas Ratchford
The
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS: 5/9/91 - Regutted to mr. marchase
mn
Marian Say that he will be too busy to do any additional
tranding this summer. Sturs
Tom cannot do.
DATE RECEIVED: 04/23/91
FILE: P-INVITATION-SPEECH
9121216
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EAU CLAIRE
Education Outreach
(715) 836-5843
EAU CLAIRE, WI 54702-4004
UVVEC
RECEIVED
SCIENCE
SUMMER
INSTITUTE
91 APR 23 All: 43
JULY 8-19, 1991
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR
April 17, 1991
Dr. Allen Bromley
The White House
Washington, D.C.
20500
Dear Dr. Bromley:
I am Jim Marchese, coordinator of guest speakers for the
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Summer Science Institute for
High Potential Students (note enclosed brochure). Our main goal
is to excite young people to pursue science as a career.
My need is for a dynamic keynote speaker with a theme of
science, technology, and education. If you or any of your
colleagues have any time to speak with these kids for about 45
minutes between July 8 to July 19, please contact me at your
earliest convenience.
Yours truly,
Jim Marchese
Jim Marchese
1220 Webster Ave.
Eau Claire, WI 54701
715-832-0301
TWELFTH ANNUAL
SCIENCE
SUMMER INSTITUTE
FOR HIGH-POTENTIAL STUDENTS
JULY 8-19, 1991
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EAU CLAIRE
SPONSORED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EAU CLAIRE EDUCATION OUTREACH
AND UW-EXTENSION
+
+
+
t
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
D
escriptions of the
Science Summer Institute Courses
ACTION
ASTRONOMY
ELECTRONICS
The course will focus on three components: classroom study of
Build a robot and other electronic projects and study operating
sky motion, planets, stars, moons, nebulae, galaxies, etc., in-
principles and theory related to the devices to be built. "Hands
cluding laboratory work and planetarium use; telescope-building
on" lab study of basic electric, electronic and digital circuits will
where students will assemble their own 6-inch, reflecting
complement construction of various breadboard projects in-
telescope at a cost of only $185 for the components (about 1/4
cluding a seven-segment LED readout. An electronic multitester
the cost of commercial units with comparable quality); sky ob-
will be assembled as well as the robot. The student will have the
serving sessions to learn telescope use and become familiar with
robot, multitester and an electronic lab kit involving 30 different
sky objects, constellations, star charts, etc. In total, the course
experimental circuits to take home. Special equipment fee is
provides a comprehensive introduction to an exciting field of
$120.00.
science. Telescope fee is $185.00.
DATE PARTIAL
ADVANCED DIGITAL
JANGLES
ELECTRONICS
This is a follow-up course to "Action Electronics," physics or
other basic electronics courses. The students will construct basic
logic gates, shift registers, digital counters, multiplexers, A to D
converters, and interface TTL logic to discrete devices. Each stu-
dent will also build a digital logic probe, a programmable
microprocessor, and a digital clock to take home. Special equip-
ment fee is $165.00.
AVIATION
SCIENCE
"Aviator" enthusiasts are invited to experience the science-related
challenges of general aviation pilots. Ground School topics in-
clude aerodynamics of flights, radio navigation, instrumentation,
cross-country flight planning, instrument landing systems, private
pilot license written exam practices, and meteorology for pilots.
Also included are airplane ownership information, using personal
computers for simulated flight, and careers in aviation. A short
flight and field trip are offered at the Eau Claire County Airport
fixed base operator.
MEDICAL
BIOLOGY
PHYSICS
This course provides an introduction to the anatomy and
Students will be introduced to electronics and optics, especially
physiology of the human body through "hands on" activities,
lasers. Laboratory projects will be featured. Topics include rela-
experiments and group problem-solving in the laboratory. Com-
tionships of voltage, current and resistance, energy forms,
parisons between healthy and diseased states for a number of
amplifiers and integrated circuits, meters and oscilloscopes,
selected body systems will be emphasized. Some of these might
lenses, mirrors, lasers and laser projects. (Students should bring
include: eating disorders, Lyme disease, heart disease, AIDS,
a calculator.)
osteoporosis and skeletal trauma and the process of aging. Field
trips and visits by experts in these areas will be included.
STUDENT
APPLICATION PROCEDURES
QUALIFICATIONS
Complete both sides of the application form and send it
with a deposit of $50 ($25 non-refundable) directly to
12-16 years of age; minimum education, completion of
Education Outreach Office. Receipt date of application
sixth grade by June 1991 except for prerequisites for cer-
form establishes consideration priority.
tain courses.
Ask two persons who know the applicant to write letters
recommended by two persons (e.g., science or sixth grade
of recommendation using the student qualification list.
teacher and a coordinator for gifted/talented, counselor
Have the letters sent directly to: Education Outreach Office,
or other appropriate person) indicating that the student:
Brewer 55, UW-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004; (715)
836-5843.
(1) scores at the 90th percentile or above in math and
science on standardized tests
Applications will be considered on a first-come, first-served basis
(2) can handle abstract concepts well and work 2 or more
upon receipt of the application form. Teachers or coordinators
years above grade level in the topic selected for study
should be asked to write their letters as soon as possible and
(3) can function successfully in a group for instruction and
should be provided with addressed stamped envelopes. It is the
dorm living (if student is not living at home)
student's responsibility to be sure the letters are sent.
(4) can maintain high motivation and interest in topic selected
Applications will be reviewed by a committee of UW-Eau Claire
for study.
faculty when the application form and two letters of recommen-
dation are on file. Applicants will be notified of acceptance
desire to study academic science and/or computers is the
promptly.
main reason for the student attending the Institute.
Applications are accepted starting January 15, 1991; the applica-
tion deadline is April 1, 1991.
Most classes are held in Phillips Science Hall on lower campus. Housing is in Towers Hall
on upper campus.
APPLICATION FORM
SCIENCE SUMMER INSTITUTE - 1991
Name:
Sex:
M
F Birthdate:
Soc. Sec. #
Address:
City, State & Zip
Phone Numbers: Home (
)
Office: Father (
)
Mother (
)
Name(s) of Parent(s):
First
Second
Grade In
Course Name: Choice
Choice
School (90-91)
School Attended:
Name
Address
City
State
Zip
Make $50 deposit check ($25 non-refundable) payable to UW-Eau Claire and return this application and check to: Education Outreach
Office, Brewer 55, UW-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004; phone (715) 836-5843.
Application Deadline: April 1, 1991
Office
Please complete other side of form before mailing.
Use
Only
OVER
FEES
Costs for the two-week Institute are:
$230.00
Room (double occupancy) and 3 meals daily,
supervision, recreational activities, sports
DORM LIFE AND
$250.00
Instruction, field trips, resource persons, instruc-
SCHEDULES
tional materials, and an Institute T-shirt. (Day
students pay only this fee.)
Students in the Science Institute may choose to commute or live
in dormitories at UW-Eau Claire and eat in adjoining dining areas.
$480.00
Total Costs (Telescope parts for the Astronomy
The living fee includes 12 nights lodging and three meals daily;
course and equipment fees for the Electronics
that is, the nights of July 7-18 and meals from dinner on July 7
courses are extra.)
through lunch on July 19. Eau Claire area students may live in
the dorms or live at home and attend on a day basis.
A deposit of $50 ($25 non-refundable) is due with registration.
Payments may then be made at a schedule of your choice. The
Students will be supervised by an adult resident coordinator and
total fees are due no later than May 31, 1991.
resident college student counselors at meals, during sports and
other activities and events and in the evenings. A typical week-
Financial Aid: Some partial tuition grants are available through
day schedule follows:
the Association for High-Potential Children, Inc. Tuition grants
are based on need. To be considered, please request a form from
the Education Outreach office. Deadline for tuition grant applica-
Breakfast
8:00 a.m.
tions is April 1, 1991, and notification of grant distribution will
Class
9:00 a.m.-Noon
be within two weeks. Should we be unable to award you the re-
Lunch
Noon-1:00 p.m.
quested assistance, and you choose not to attend the Institute,
Class
1:00-3:00 p.m.
your $50 deposit will be refunded.
Recreation/Study
3:00-5:00 p.m.
Dinner
5:00-6:00 p.m.
Cancellations and Refunds: UW-Eau Claire reserves the right to
Study/Recreation/Free
6:00-10:00 p.m.
cancel any program due to insufficient enrollment. In this event,
registrants will be notified and offered full refund or the oppor-
Activities, which are arranged between 3 and 5 p.m. and after
tunity to enroll in an alternative class. In all other cases, a
dinner for students who live in the dorms, will include sports,
registrant who chooses to cancel will be charged a handling fee
excursions, and cultural events such as plays and concerts.
of $25.00 for cancellations prior to April 1 and $50.00 for cancella-
Facilities for swimming, bowling and exercise will be available
tions between April 1 and June 21. These amounts will be sub-
in addition to outdoor activities. Students will have study time
tracted from any refunds requested by registrants who cancel.
set aside for the after-class work related to their classes. They will
After June 21, refunds will be granted only for medical reasons
also have access to University libraries and computers.
and must be accompanied by a doctor's signed statement of
explanation.
A special event will be planned for the weekend of July 13-14.
There will also be picnics, competitions and other group activities.
Those students who find it difficult to return home on Friday
afternoon may choose to remain in the dormitory Friday night
for an additional fee. Arrangements must be made before the start
of the Institute. Contact the Education Outreach Office for more
details.
TRANSPORTATION
Students must provide their own transportation to and from the
Institute. There will be pick-up and delivery available to the Eau
Claire bus station and the Eau Claire County airport.
Please provide the information requested below about the persons who are recommending
the student for the Science Summer Institute.
Previous Student:
Year
Class
No new letters needed.
Science Teacher/
Classroom Teacher:
Name
Title
Address
City
State & Zip
Phones: School (
)
Home (
)
Coordinator/Counselor: Name
Title
Address
City
State & Zip
Phone: School (
)
Home (
)
AMB
EXPERIMENTAL
CHEMISTRY
PSYCHOLOGY
This course allows students to investigate some of the basic con-
This course has two aims: 1) to help students learn to apply the
cepts of chemistry and its applications in our environment and
scientific method to the analysis of human behavior; and 2) to
our lifestyles. Students will spend most of their time in the
teach students to think critically about what we do and do not
laboratory doing and learning from experiments. Subjects include
know about human behavior. A strong emphasis on "hands on"
basic atomic structure, chemical properties and reactions,
laboratory experiences teaches the scientific method. Structured
methods of analysis, energy in reactions and practical applica-
thinking exercises, discussion, and debate foster critical think-
tions in the chemistry of foods, medicinal products and plastics.
ing about major topics such as learning, motivation, perception,
personality, thinking, and social group behavior.
VETERINARY
MEDICINE
The course is designed as an introduction to veterinary medicine
and includes a combination of laboratory and discussion. Topics
include reproduction and the genital-urinary system, hematology,
parasitology, radiology, anaesthesiology and surgery. Students
will have "hands on" experiences working in the veterinary
laboratory and observing in surgery. Field trips will be a special
part of the learning experience. Class will meet on the campus
and at the Eau Claire Animal Hospital or other local animal
hospitals. (Prerequisites: completion of eighth grade and a basic
biology/life science course in junior/senior high school.)
SUPERCOMPUTER
APPLICATIONS-TECHNOLOGY
ADVANCED LOGO-
IN THE SCIENCES
COMPUTERS BEYOND
Here is a special opportunity to work directly with a supercom-
THE TURTLE
puter. An overview of the Cray X-MP supercomputer will be
shared through pictures, slides, and examination of the internal
Much like chess, the Logo programming language takes only
structure of this powerful machine. Questions about how it works
minutes to learn, but a lifetime to master. This class will include
and what makes it a supercomputer will be explored. Then na-
some comparisons of procedural and non-procedural languages
tional networking with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
and compiled and interpretive languages. Students will use the
California, will be explained and experienced. Students will then
Logo language to learn advanced programming techniques such
work on PC's to improve skills in problem-solving and creativi-
as divide-and-conquer problem solving, modular programming,
ty and, utilizing networking with the Cray X-MP, experience how
recursion and data structures. Challenges to use these techniques
technology can enhance their solutions. Applications will be in
will be in areas of "Visual Modeling," artificial intelligence, and
the subject areas of graphics and ray tracing, global warming,
graphic simulation. (Prerequisites: Formal programming ex-
and particle physics. Students will experience being a "scientist"
perience in any language with some knowledge of a procedural
and learn how technology helps science.
language. Student must be familiar with procedures, functions,
parameters, and return values.)
EXPERIMENTAL
GEOLOGY
Through hands-on activities, model constructions and field trips,
this course introduces methods for studying geological materials
and processes. Students will explore the world of rocks, minerals
and fossils and learn about earthquakes, planets, plate
movements, evolution and earth processes. Projects include use
of maps and compass, chemical and physical tests of minerals,
identification of rocks and minerals, field trips to local outcrops,
collection and extraction of fossil specimens, mapping planetary
terrains, and studying an actual earthquake record. Participating
students will also examine problems related to natural hazards,
origins and limitations of our geological resources and impact of
human activities on earth's environment.
G
eneral Information About the Institute
T
he twelfth annual Science Summer Institute for
to gain new knowledge and to make lasting friendships with
12- to 16-year-olds is designed to provide opportunities
others who have similar interests and aspirations. In addition,
for high-potential students to explore a science or
students have opportunities to use the facilities of a university
science-related topic intensively for a two-week period.
campus and to interact with outstanding instructors from the
Also, students will have opportunities to interact with specialists
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, area school faculties and the
in several fields of science, mathematics and computers.
community.
The 1991 Science Summer Institute will offer a choice of 12
Classes for the Institute will be held on the UW-Eau Claire cam-
courses-astronomy, aviation science, medical biology, action
pus. Resident students will live in the University dormitories
electronics, advanced digital electronics, chemistry, physics,
under appropriate supervision. After-class activities will include
veterinary medicine, experimental psychology, experimental
sports, cultural events and trips. Both residential and day students
geology, advanced logo and supercomputer applications. Each
are welcome.
course will include 50 hours of instruction and each participant
will select one course for study. Class limit is 18 participants.
Students can apply for the Institute by completing the applica-
tion form in this brochure and arranging for two letters of recom-
Objectives for each course include opportunities for students to
mendation. Letters are requested to help ensure a successful ex-
learn about the knowledge base in their area of study, to learn
perience for each student. Parents, teachers and counselors are
the methodology of carrying out scientific investigation in the
encouraged to call the Education Outreach Office if they have
laboratory and field, to work with instruments and techniques
questions.
and to apply the knowledge.
Course descriptions, living and instruction costs, student
This Institute, in its twelfth year, has become a model for pro-
qualifications and application procedures are presented elsewhere
grams in Wisconsin and other areas. It offers students unusual
in this brochure. In 1990, 209 students from 10 states attended
and inspiring opportunities to develop their academic potential,
the Institute. You are invited to apply in 1991!
Direct inquiries to: Education Outreach Office, Brewer 55, UW-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004
Telephone (715) 836-5843
Science Summer Institute
Non-Profit Org.
Education Outreach
U.S. Postage
Brewer Hall 55
PAID
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004
Permit No. 219
Eau Claire, WI
TWELFTH ANNUAL
SCIENCE
SUMMER INSTITUTE
FOR HIGH-POTENTIAL STUDENTS
July 8-19, 1991
"INVITATION FOR DR. BROMLEY"
TYPE: INVITATION-SPEECH
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
9121360
SPEECH:
YES
NO
FROM:
NASH, Martin, Forrest Anthony, Frank Kung and
Bruce Mackler: ASSOCIATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
DATE OF EVENT: 05/14/91
LOCATION OF EVENT: WASHINGTON, D.C.
TIME OF EVENT: 01:15PM
SUBJECT:
INVITATION TO BE THE KEYNOTE LUNCHEON SPEAKER AT
THEIR ANNUAL MEETING.
RSVP:
05/08/91
CONTACT PERSON: DR. BRUCE MACKLER
CONTACT NUMBER: 202/861-1539
INVITATION ACCEPTED?
YES
NO
COPIES TO:
LIFE SCIENCES
REMARKS:
Reqrests conveyed to Bruce Mackler by KenYalc.
Shic Ism (05/09/91)
DATE OF LETTER:
04/23/91
DATE RECEIVED: 05/08/91
FILE: P. INVITATION-SPEECH
9121360
RECEIVED
Association of Biotechnology Companies
91 MAY 8 Alo 54
President:
MARTIN NASH
Regentech, Inc.
President-Elect:
'OFFICE OF THE
THOMAS WIGGANS
April 23, 1991
DIRECTOR
Serono Laboratories, Inc.
Vice President:
FRANK F.C. KUNG, Ph.D.
Genelabs, Inc.
Secretary:
DOUGLAS A. DOERFLER
The Honorable D. Allan Bromley
Life Technologies, Inc.
Assistant to the President for
Treasurer:
EDWARD A. BARTKO, C.P.A.
Science and Technology
Coopers & Lybrand
Executive Office of the President
Past Presidents:
GRAHAM STRACHAN
Washington, D.C. 20500
Allelix Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (Canada)
ROBERT J. JUDGE
Charles River Biotechnical Services, Inc.
Dear Dr. Bromley:
SAMUEL H. RONEL, Ph.D.
Interferon Sciences, Inc.
Executive Director:
Thank you for your strong and ongoing support of the U.S.
PAMELA J. BRIDGEN, Ph.D., M.B.A.
biotechnology industry. We appreciate the significant role you and your staff
General Counsel:
BRUCE F. MACKLER, Ph.D., J.D.
play in the oversight and administrative policy towards our industry.
Directors:
Science, particularly NIH and NSF funded research are critical to the
FORREST H. ANTHONY, M.D., Ph.D.
Quality Biotech, Inc.
continual innovation and growth of biotechnology.
MARK D. DIBNER, Ph.D.
North Carolina Biotechnology Center
For this reason, we would like to invite you, on behalf of the
RICHARD K. KOEHN, Ph.D.
Center for Biotechnology
Association of Biotechnology Companies, to be a keynote luncheon speaker
State University of New York
at our annual meeting which will be held in Washington, D.C., May 13-16,
GEORGE W. MASTERS
Hemosol, Inc. (Canada)
1991. Your address is tentatively scheduled for 1:15 p.m. on Tuesday, May
RUSSELL C. MCLAUCHLAN
14th, but we would, of course, be willing to work with you to accommodate
Immunomedics, Inc.
MARVIN L MILLER
your schedule.
Lederle Laboratories Division
American Cyanamid Company
SUSAN MICHAL SMITH
By way of background, ABC is a not-for-profit trade association with
Medimorphics, Inc.
over 250 members consisting of: biotechnology and pharmaceutical
companies; academic and state biotechnology centers; not-for-profit and
government-affiliated entities; and, other organizations interested in
biotechnology. ABC was founded to represent the unique and diverse
interests, both business and scientific, of small biotechnology companies. In
addition to the areas mentioned above, other areas of interest to ABC are
Federal research support for biotechnology, small business issues, Federal
regulation of biotechnology, research and development tax credits, and the
European Community 1992. We have attached a brochure on ABC for your
information.
1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 330
Washington, DC 20009-1039 USA
(202) 234-3330
Telefax (202) 234-3565
Page two
Dr. Bromley
April 23, 1991
Based upon registration at previous meetings, attendance at the Annual Meeting is
expected to number about 600. Registration is open to all in the biotechnology industry and
will include ABC members, officials and staff of Federal agencies, the press (including the
trade press), and members of other scientific associations.
If we can be of any assistance or answer any questions, please feel free to contact Dr.
Bruce F. Mackler at 202-861-1539.
We hope that your schedule will permit you to join us. Thank you for your
consideration of this matter and we look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Marth Nash
,Hemthony
Martin Nash
Forrest H. Anthony, M.D., Ph.D.
President, ABC and
President-Elect, ABC and
President
President
Regentech, Inc.
Quality Biotech Inc.
Justing Bruce 7 Macblex
Frank F. C. Kung, Ph.D.
Bruce F. Mackler, Ph.D., Esq.
Vice President, ABC and
General Counsel, ABC and
President & CEO
Partner
Genelabs, Inc.
Baker & Hostetler
"INVITATION FOR DR. BROMLEY"
TYPE: INVITATION-SPEECH
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
9121233
SPEECH:
YES
NO
FROM:
Verrick French
DATE OF EVENT: 05/15/91
LOCATION OF EVENT: HOTEL WASHINGTON
TIME OF EVENT: 06:00PM
SUBJECT:
Speak to the Board of Directors and membership ofthe
International Electronics Manufacturers and
Consumers of America
RSVP:
05/01/91
CONTACT PERSON: Verrick French
CONTACT NUMBER: 202 783-7276
INVITATION ACCEPTED?
YES
NO
COPIES TO:
REMARKS:
Marian Shin
5/15/91 - Regutted to Tracy Gilman!
DATE OF LETTER:
04/23/91
DATE RECEIVED:
mn
FILE: P. Invitation - Speech
9121233
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of America, Inc.
Suite 1260, The Willard, 1455 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone
Facsimile
(202) 783-7276
(202) 783-4345
Keith H. Smith
Executive Director
April 23, 1991
Honorable D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
Room 360
Old Executive Office Building
Seventeenth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dear Dr. Bromley:
I am writing to invite you to speak briefly and informally during DIRE "OFFICE the
91 APR 25
rescheduled annual meeting of the Board of Directors and membership of
the International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of America
RECEIVED
(IEMCA), at any time between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May.
15, 1991, or 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 16, 1991, at
the Hotel Washington, 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., here
in town.
IEMCA is an American trade association composed of the United States
manufacturing subsidiaries of 18 major overseas electronics companies,
including, for example, Fujitsu America, Hitachi America, the Matsushita
Electric Corporation of America, Mitsubishi Electronics America, and the
Sony Corporation of America, plus the National Office Machine Dealers
Association, and the J.C. Penney Company. During the past decade,
all of IEMCA's manufacturing members have established substantial and
rapidly expanding plants in the United States which produce virtually
every kind of commercial and consumer electronics product.
Collectively their American investment exceeds an estimated $35 billion,
their annual United States sales exceed $30 billion, and their current
American employment is over 175,000 people. In addition, the
organization includes a dozen well-known Washington law firms and
consulting firms retained by IEMCA's members.
IEMCA's members are committed to freer international trade, in general,
and committed, in particular, to an improved trading relationship
between the United States, Japan, and Europe. Their specific concerns
include, for example, the Section 301 process, the structural
impediments initiative, foreign investment in the United States,
intellectual property law and regulation, antidumping law and
regulation, international tax policy, re-extension of "fast-track"
authority, the GATT Uruguay Round, and the proposed North American
Free Trade Agreement.
A3819 MDTTOO
onl 6011901 to aiemwano bits 2101 abinosta
T
100.
W.W. jove
SNAH 517. X
30 - 'II 3
11
DATE
A.C.B 03 HILHOWH
International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of America, Inc.
The Honorable D. Allan Bromley
April 23, 1991
Page Two
I will be happy to provide you with additional information about IEMCA,
its officers and members, and the event on May 16.
Sincerely,
Verrick Vick O. French
President,
French & Company, and
Consultant to IEMCA
FOUR UND
SDU
25% COTTON FIDER
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121234
FROM:
SCHRIESHEIM, A.
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 04/22/91
SUBJECT: A THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING TO SPEAK ON JUNE 20 AT THE
DIRECTOR'S COLLOQUIUM AT ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
ASSIGNED TO: D. Allan Bromley
ACTION REQUIRED:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO:
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS:
DATE RECEIVED:
FILE:P INVITE-SPEECH FOLLOW-UP
9/2/234
ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
TELEPHONE 312/972-3872
9700 SOUTH CASS AVENUE, ARGONNE, ILLINOIS 60439
FAX 312/972-3679
April 22, 1991
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology
Executive Office of the President
Washington, DC 20506
Dear Allan,
I'm delighted that you will be able to visit Argonne on June 20th to speak at the
Director's Colloquium. It will be a wonderful opportunity for our staff and a particular
personal pleasure for me. Dr. Valentin, who chairs the Colloquium committee, has
been in contact with your office and will coordinate the details of your visit.
I'm also looking forward to joining you on the upcoming visit to BRECER the
and will be talking with you then.
CE THE
Soviet
OR
R 25 Union A10
RECEIVED
Regards,
RAV/AS:sam
A. Schriesheim, Tel Director
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
"INVITATION FOR DR. BROMLEY"
TYPE: INVITATION-SPEECH
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121153
SPEECH:
YES
NO
FROM:
WILLIAMS, Susan: BRACY WILLIAMS & COMPANY
DATE OF EVENT: 05/01/91
LOCATION OF EVENT: 1625 M STREET N.W., WASHINGTON
TIME OF EVENT: 10:00AM
SUBJECT:
INVITATION TO BE THE FEATURED SPEAKER AT THE WESTERN
FUELS ASSOCIATION'S ANNUAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MEETING ON THE SUBJECT OF GLOBAL WARMING.
RSVP:
04/22/91
CONTACT PERSON:
CONTACT NUMBER:
INVITATION ACCEPTED?
NO
COPIES TO:
Thomas Ratchford
Nancy Maynard
REMARKS: 4/30/91 Regretted!
mr
DATE OF LETTER:
04/17/91
DATE RECEIVED: 04/17/91
FILE: P. INVITATION-SPEECH
TRANSMITTED FROM 2026 94805
i
04.17.91 15:54 P.02 * 9121153
Bracy Williams & Company
Government & Public Affairs Consultants
RECEIVED
April 17, 1991
91 APR 17 P5: P 07
OFFICE OF THE
Dr. Allan D. Bromley
DIRECTOR
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
old Executive Office Building
17th St. and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dear Dr. Bromley:
I am writing on behalf of the Western Fuels Association to
invite you to be the featured speaker at its annual Board of
Directors meeting to be held in Washington on Wednesday, May 1,
1991.
The Western Fuels Association is a national fuel supply
cooperative operating on a not-for-profit basis and providing fuel
supply services to consumer-owned utilities in the Rocky Mountain
West, the Great Plains, and the Southwest.
As both a coal producer and consumer, the Western Fuels
Association has been deeply involved with the issue of global
climate change. The Association has worked with members of the
scientific community in an attempt to promote more balanced, broad-
based and objective research on the issue.
To that end, the Association is extending this invitation for
you to speak to its Board on the subject of global warming. The
meeting will be held at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 1, 1991, at the
Western Fuels Association offices at 1625 M Street N.W., in
Washington.
I understand that there are many demands for your time but we
at the Western Fuels Association are hopeful that you can attend
and give us your views of this increasingly important subject.
Sincerely,
Susan Williams
1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 304 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 659-4805 FAX (202) 331-3247
TRANSMITTED FROM 2026 94805
i
04.17.91 15:54 P.01
*
Bracy Williams & Company
Government & Public Affairs Consultants
TELECOPY COVER SHEET
2 pages, including this page
TO:
Allen Bromley
Susan Williams
FR:
If you do not receive all pages, or if you have further
questions, please call: (202) 659-4805.
1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 304 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 659-4805 FAX (202) 331-3247
"INVITATION FOR DR. BROMLEY"
TYPE: INVITATION-SPEECH
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
9121126
SPEECH:
YES
NO
FROM:
TRULL, Frankie L.: NABR
DATE OF EVENT: 05/20/91
LOCATION OF EVENT: CAPITAL HILTON HOTEL, 16TH & K STREETS, N.W.
TIME OF EVENT: 09:00AM
SUBJECT:
INVITATION TO OPEN THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH'S 1991 ANNUAL CONFERENCE.
RSVP:
04/30/91
CONTACT PERSON:
CONTACT NUMBER:
INVITATION ACCEPTED?
YES
NO
COPIES TO:
Dr. Henderson
REMARKS:
Morion write them that DAB cannot doit but "I
with D.A. Hend erscn's office to inguire about his
understand that you tan been in intoct
availability. I tope he can meet with Shre you."
DATE OF LETTER:
03/29/91
DATE RECEIVED: 04/16/91
FILE: P. INVITATION-SPEECH
9/2/126
NABR
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH RECEIVED
March 29, 1991
91 APR 16 A10: 18
D. Allan Bromley, Ph. D.
OFFICE OF THE
Special Assistant to the President and
DIRECTOR
Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy
Old Executive Office Building
17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20506
Dear Dr. Bromley:
Please accept the National Association for Biomedical
Research's invitation to open its 1991 annual conference on
Monday, May 20 at 9:00 a.m. in the Capital Hilton Hotel,
16th and K Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C.
The conference will be attended by representatives of
Association member institutions which include 350
universities, medical and veterinary schools, academic and
professional societies, and voluntary health organizations
as well as pharmaceutical and other research intensive
companies. The purpose of the conference is to discuss
current legislative and regulatory activities affecting the
use of laboratory animals in research, testing and
education. Attendees will spend the second day of the
conference visiting their Members of Congress. They would
very much appreciate hearing your views on communicating
with elected officials, federal agencies and the public
concerning the process and needs of science.
We do hope your crowded schedule will allow you meet and
briefly address the NABR membership. I know that they would
welcome the opportunity to hear your remarks, and also to
thank you in person for your activities on behalf of
science. My office will be in touch with yours to learn
whether you will be able to attend.
Thank you very much for considering our invitation; we hope
to see you in May.
Sincerely,
Orankei L. Grull
Frankie L. Trull
President
818 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 303
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 857-0540
FAX (202) 659-1902
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 13, 1991
Dear Ms. Trull:
Thank you for your letter of March 29, 1991, inviting me to open the NABR annual
conference on May 20, 1991. I apologize for the much belated response.
Unfortunately, due to scheduling difficulties, I will not be able to accept you kind
invitation, as much as I would like to have done so. I understand that you have been
in contact with Dr. D. A. Henderson's office to inquire about his availability. I hope
he can meet with you.
I appreciate your thinking of me and would like to offer my best wishes for a
successful conference.
Sincerely yours,
Dorran Rromley
D. Allan Bromley
The Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
Ms. Frankie L. Trull
President
National Association for Biomedical Research
818 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 303
Washington, D.C. 20006
"INVITATION FOR DR. BROMLEY"
TYPE: INVITATION-SPEECH
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121111
SPEECH:
YES
NO
FROM:
LAWSON, Richard L.: NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION
DATE OF EVENT: 06/21/91
LOCATION OF EVENT: GREENBRIER HOTEL, WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, WV
TIME OF EVENT:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN A MORNING BUSINESS SESSION
TITLED, "ENERGY NEEDS & CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY
OPTIONS FOR THE 90'S" OF THE NCA'A 74th ANNIVERSARY
CONVENTION.
RSVP:
04/29/91
CONTACT PERSON: DAN GERKIN
CONTACT NUMBER: 202/463-2659
INVITATION ACCEPTED?
NO
COPIES TO:
Thomas Ratchford
Nancy Maynard
Dr. Wong
REMARKS:
4/16/91 Regutted to Shuly mr
DATE OF LETTER:
04/11/91
DATE RECEIVED: 04/15/91
FILE: P. INVITATION-SPEECH
9121111
NATIONAL
COAL
COAL
ASSOCIATION
RICHARD L. LAWSON
President
(202) 463-2647
April 11, 1991
OFFICE DIRECTOR OF THE
15 A9: 38
CEIVED
Mr. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Old Executive Office Building
17th Street & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dear Mr. Bromley:
The National Coal Association (NCA) is planning its 74th anniversary convention
June 20-23, 1991, at the Greenbrier Hotel, White Sulphur Springs, WV. With the theme
Coal: Freedom's Foundation, our program objective is to examine key energy and
environmental policy issues, as well as the important link between coal and electricity.
It is my pleasure to invite you to participate in a morning business session on June
21 titled, Energy Needs and Climate Change-Policy Options for the '90s. Our members
would be most interested in your perspectives regarding the Administration's position on
global climate change issues, congressional climate change initiatives, a status of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change activities and its potential impact on U.S.
energy policy development. Your prepared remarks should last approximately 20 minutes.
As you know, NCA is the national trade organization for coal and represents the
entire spectrum of the industry's producers--small, medium and large--as well as numerous
major equipment manufacturers and suppliers, transporters, utilities and others interested in
coal. Last year, NCA members produced approximately 65 percent of the nation's coal
tonnage.
I hope your schedule will allow you to join us and enjoy the magnificent facilities at
the Greenbrier. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me or
Dan Gerkin (202) 463-2659. I hope to hear from you soon.
Richard Sincerely, L.Lawron
Richard L. Lawson
1130 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-4677
(202) 463-2625
FAX: (202) 463-6152
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121115
FROM:
VAN DOMELEN, John F.: WENTWORTH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 04/09/91
SUBJECT: APPRECIATION FOR DR. BROMLEY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE
ACADEMIC SYMPOSIUM.
ASSIGNED TO:
ACTION REQUIRED:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS:
DATE RECEIVED: 04/15/91
FILE: INVITATION SPEECH FOLLOWUP
9/2/115
RECEIVED
Wentworth
Office of the President 91 / APR 15 All: 16
Institute of Technology
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR
April 9, 1991
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dear Dr. Bromley:
I want to express my deep appreciation for your participation in
our Academic Symposium - a highlight of the inaugural events. Your
remarks were timely, warmly received and continue to spark lively and
thoughtful discussion on campus.
It is indeed a pleasure to welcome you to the Wentworth family. I
will take advantage of your offer and will stay in touch. You deserve
news about your alma mater and the progress it makes towards its goal
of developing a new curriculum for the teaching of technology.
Warm regards,
John John F. Van Domelen
President
JVD/rs
Mac#R16
XC: File
Chrono
A
Associate and Bachelor Degree Programs. 550 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115 617-442-9010
"INVITATION FOR DR. BROMLEY"
TYPE: INVITATION-SPEECH
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121084
SPEECH:
YES
NO
FROM:
DAVIS, Irwin L.: UNIVERSITY HILL CORPORATION
DATE OF EVENT:
LOCATION OF EVENT: SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
TIME OF EVENT:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST TO SPEAK AT THEIR ANNUAL MEETING (to be
scheduled at your convenience in June).
RSVP:
04/26/91
CONTACT PERSON: DAVID MANKIEWICZ
CONTACT NUMBER: 315/475-7244
INVITATION ACCEPTED?
(AA
NO
COPIES TO:
Dr. Phillips
REMARKS:
DATE OF LETTER:
04/08/91
DATE RECEIVED: 04/12/91
FILE: P- INVITATION-SPEECH
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 18, 1991
Dear Mr. Davis:
Thank you for your letter of April 8, 1991, inviting me to speak at your Annual
Meeting scheduled to be held in Syracuse in June.
However, the number of requests I have received for the month of June is
overwhelming, so as much as I would like to join you, I must regretfully decline.
I appreciate your thinking of me and wish you a successful meeting.
Sincerely yours,
Donan
D. Allan Bromley
The Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
Mr. Irwin L. Davis
President
University Hill Corporation
736 Irving Avenue
Crouse Unit, East Wing, Room 252
Syracuse, New York 13210
9121084
University
Hill
James W. Maher, Chairman
RECEIVED
Corporation
Irwin L. Davis, President
David A. Mankiewicz, Executive Vice President
91 APR 12 A 9 : 48
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR
April 8, 1991
Dr. Allan Bromley,
President's Science Advisor
Old Executive Office Building
Room 358
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Dr. Bromley:
The University Hill Corporation is a private, not for profit
organization which seeks to encourage the growth and development
of the University Hill area in Syracuse. The Corporation was
created in 1963 and has among its members the major educational
and medical institutions, businesses, religious organizations and
others who are concerned with the future of University Hill. Our
major institutional members include Syracuse University, the SUNY
Health Science Center at Syracuse, the SUNY College of
Environmental Science and Forestry, the Veterans Administration
Medical Center and Crouse Irving Memorial Hospital.
On behalf of the membership of the University Hill
Corporation, I am asking you to speak at our Annual Meeting which
would be scheduled at your convenience in June. Given the
location of the major research institutions of the community
within our area, our membership is extremely interested in the
subjects of technology development and technology transfer, and
using the scientific expertise of the institutions to stimulate
economic development.
We are now undertaking a cooperative effort with Cornell
University, Syracuse University, and the business leadership of
the Central New York area represented by the Metropolitan
Development Association to create the "supercomputing corridor"
between Cornell and Syracuse. This program seeks to take
advantage of Cornell's supercomputing center (funded by NSF) and
the parallel processing expertise at Syracuse (funded by DAPPA)
736 Irving Avenue - Crouse Unit - East Wing - Room 252
Syracuse, NY 13210
Tel: (315) 475-7244
to make Central New York one of the centers of the next
generation of computer development.
I would appreciate it if you could let us know if you could
attend our meeting as our guest. We will have approximately 200
guests including the public and private leadership of Central New
York, and the luncheon will be held at Syracuse University.
If you or your staff have any questions, please feel free to
contact David Mankiewicz or me at (315) 475-7244.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Irwin L. Davis
President
CC: Hon. James Walsh
Hon. Alfonse D'Amato
H. Douglas Barclay
"INVITATION FOR DR. BROMLEY"
TYPE: INVITATION-SPEECH
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
9121197
SPEECH:
YES
NO
FROM:
STENBAEK, Marianne: MCGILL
DATE OF EVENT: 01/22/92
LOCATION OF EVENT: MONTREAL
TIME OF EVENT:
SUBJECT:
INVITATION TO BE THE KEYNOTE SPEAKER AT THE OPENING
PLENARY SESSION OF THE POLARTECH '92 CONFERENCE.
RSVP:
05/06/91
CONTACT PERSON:
CONTACT NUMBER:
INVITATION ACCEPTED?
YES
NO
COPIES TO:
Dr. Phillips
Thomas Ratchford
REMARKS:
DATE OF LETTER:
04/11/91
DATE RECEIVED: 04/22/91
FILE: P- INVITATION-SPEECH
9/2/197
McGill
RECEIVED
Centre for Northern Studies and Research
McGill University
805 Sherbrooke Street West
2: 25
Tel.: (514) 398-6052
Burnside Hall
Montreal Quebec, Canada
Fax: (514) 398-8364
Room 720
H3A 2K6
Telex: 05 268510
OFFICE OF THE
April 11, 1991
DIRECTOR
Mr. D. Allan Bromley
Science Advisor to the President
and Director of the Office of S&T Policy
Room 358 - Old Executive Office Bldg.
White House Complex
17th & Pennsylvania NW
Washington, DC 20506
Dear Mr. Bromley,
On behalf of the executive organizing committee I want to take
this opportunity to officially invite you to be a keynote speaker at the
opening plenary session of the Polartech '92 conference. This very
prestigious and multi-faceted event will take place in Montreal, January
22-25, 1992. Polartech '92 will involve some 400 to 500 participants
from all the circumpolar countries as well as other countries interested
in the development of polar technologies. There will be scholars,
professionals, civil servants, entrepreneurs from these regions.
The general theme of Polartech '92 is the development and
commercial utilization of technologies in polar regions. The sub-
themes are:
a.
Application of Polar Technology
b.
Offshore and Onshore Hydrocarbon Technology
C.
Hydropower and Mining Technology
d.
Polar Environment and Technology
e.
Small Businesses and Technology.
f.
Polar Telecommunications
It will also be a multi-faceted event because it follows
immediately upon the Fifth Winter Cities Biennale, staged by the City of
Montreal and includes a Mayor's conference forum, a competition of
ideas, an exhibition, as well as a "Business Rendez-Vous" organised by
the Chamber of Commerce and business people, all of these events will be
combined with a comprehensive cultural and social program. The whole
focus of this week in Montreal will be 'northern regions'.
2
POLARTECH'92
Mr. D. Allan Bromley
April 11, 1991
Page Two
We are inviting all the ministers of science and technology/
industry from the circumpolar countries. It is our expectation to make
the first day a very high-powered and high profile introduction and
discussion of the circumpolar countries' expertise and future deve-
lopment of polar technologies.
As one of our keynote speakers, we would ask of you to speak about
development and application of polar technology in your country. We
hope that our invitation will interest you and that you will find time
in your busy schedule to make room to make this international event a
truly successful one.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely
Yours,
Marianne Stenbaek, Ph.D.
Director
Centre for Northern Studies and Research
encl.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 4, 1991
Dear Dr. Stenbaek:
Thank you for your letter of April 11, 1991, inviting me to be a keynote speaker at
the opening session of the Polartech '92 conference scheduled for January 22-25, 1992.
I would very much like to attend the conference and would tentatively accept your
invitation. However, because that particular time is during our budget season, I
cannot make a firm commitment this far in advance. Please write to me later this
fall, and by that time I should be able to give you a definite answer.
Thank you for thinking of me. I look forward to hearing from you later this year.
Sincerely yours,
D. Allan Bromley
The Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
Dr. Marianne Stenbaek
Director
Centre for Northern Studies and Research
McGill University
Burnside Hall - Room 720
805 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
H3A 2K6
5e BIENNALE
5ᵗʰ INTERNATIONAL
INTERNATIONALE
WINTER CITIES
DES VILLES D'HIVER
BIENNIAL
MONTRÉAL 1992
MONTRÉAL 1992
l'hiver
Le 350e anniversaire de fondation de Montréal et la 5e
N
ous sommes des citadins nordiques. L'hiver et
Biennale internationale des villes d'hiver me donnent le
la neige nous rassemblent et nous font partager une
Living Vivre in en harmony
privilège de vous inviter à une rencontre internationale
façon de vivre, de travailler, de nous distraire.
d'envergure qui se déroulera dans notre métropole du
De l'environnement à l'aménagement urbain à
17 au 21 janvier 1992.
toutes les formes de loisirs, les diverses activités de
Montréal connaît un hiver froid et enneigé. Nous
la 5e Biennale internationale des villes d'hiver nous
avons su l'apprivoiser en mettant au point différentes
permettront des échanges nombreux et variés sur
technologies et même, en faire une source de plaisir.
notre mode de vie et sur notre condition de citoyens
A | occasion de la 5e Biennale internationale des
du froid.
villes d'hiver qui se déroulera sous le thème prometteur de
A titre de Montréalais et de président du club de
"Vivre en harmonie avec l'hiver", nous pourrons mettre en
hockey Le Canadien de Montréal, c'est avec honneur
commun nos expériences et voir ensemble comment faire
que j'ai accepté la présidence du comité organisateur
de l'hiver l'un de nos meilleurs atouts dans le
de cet événement et c'est avec beaucoup
développement de nos communautés.
d'enthousiasme que Montréal vous attend.
Vous serez, je l'espère, au rendez-vous. La
population de Montréal vous accueillera avec l'hospitalité
proverbiale qu'elle sait réserver à ses amis.
A bientôt à Montréal,
The 350th Anniversary of the founding of Montréal and
We are urban dwellers of the north. Winter and
the 5th International Winter Cities Biennial have afforded
snow bring us together, and as a result, we share a
me the privilege of inviting you to a gathering of
way of living, of working, of playing.
international scope which will take place in our City from
From the environment to urban development,
January 17 to 21, 1992.
to the many forms that leisure and recreation can take,
Winter in Montréal is cold and snowy. But we have
the various activities of the Vth International Winter
managed to master winter by perfecting a variety of
Cities Biennial will allow us to share, in a variety of
technologies, and have even turned winter into a source
different ways, both our lifestyle and our condition of
of pleasure.
citizens of colder climates.
The 5th International Winter Cities Biennial, which
As a Montrealer and President of the Montréal
will unfold around the general theme of "Living in Harmony
Le Canadien hockey club, / was honoured to accept
with Winter", will be an opportunity to share our
the chairmanship of the organizing committee for this
experiences and look at how we can make winter a major
event and let me tell you that Montréal eagerly awaits.
asset in the development of our communities.
/ hope you'll be there. The people of Montréal will
greet you with the proverbial hospitality that it reserves for
MON
friends.
See you soon in Montréal,
Jan Sac
Jelany
17-21
17-21
janvier
January
Jean Doré
Ronald Corey
1992
1992
Le maire / Mayor
Président / President
La 5e Biennale
The 5th Winter
Vivre en harmonie avec l'hiver
Living in harmony with winter
des Villes d'hiver
Cities Biennial
Un événement de prestige
A Prestige Event
Six volets uniques!
A Unique Six-Part Program!
Pour marquer de facon prestigieuse le
To launch the celebration of the 350th
début des célébrations de son 350e
Anniversary of its founding in a fitting
anniversaire de fondation, Montréal vous
manner, Montréal is inviting you to the 5th
convie, du 17 au 21 janvier 1992, à la 5e
International Winter Cities Biennial, to be
Biennale internationale des Villes d hiver.
held from January 17 to 21, 1992.
Après Sapporo, Shenyang, Edmonton
After Sapporo, Shenyang, Edmonton
et Tromso, la Ville de Montréal a obtenu le
and Tromso, it is now the City of Montréal's
privilège d organiser cette manifestation
privilege to organize this event, the only one
unique en son genre dans l'hémisphère
of its kind in the northern hemisphere.
nord.
In the heart of winter, Montréal will
En plein coeur de l'hiver, Montréal
become the setting for a major multifaceted
deviendra le théâtre d un événement
event where the realities of winter will take
d envergure a multiples facettes ou les
center stage for five (5) days, during a
réalités hivernales feront I objet pendant
conference of mayors from northern cities,
cinq (5) jours une conférence des maires
a forum of experts, an exhibition, an
des villes nordiques, d'un forum, d une
international competition seeking innovative
exposition, di un concours international
ideas, and a program of cultural and sports
d idées et un programme activités
activities.
culturelles et sportives.
Don't miss this historic rendez-vous in
II ne faut pas rater ce rendez-vous
Montreal, winter city par excellence.
historique a Montréal, ville d'hiver par
excellence.
Montréal
Québec
Canada
CÉLÉBRATIONS
MONTREAL
Bell
SNC
AirCanada
1642-1992
Transporteur officiel
Officiel Carrier
La 5e Biennale
The 5th Winter
des Villes d'hiver
Cities Biennial
Un événement de prestige
A Prestige Event
Six volets uniques!
A Unique Six-Part Program!
Photo: Sylvain Mageau
La conférence des maires
The Mayors Conference
L'exposition
The Exhibition
La rencontre
La conférence réunira au-delà de cinquante
The conference will bring together over fifty
Vivre l'hiver en ville
L'exposition "Vivre l'hiver en ville"
The "Winter in the City" exhibition will
(50) maires des villes de toutes tailles
des décideurs
(50) mayors of cities of every size from Asia,
favorisera le développement et les
encourage development and trade
d'Asie, d'Europe et d'Amérique qui
Europe and North America who, together,
Winter in the City
échanges entre les industries d'hiver
between winter industries, and enhance
relèvent ensemble un défi: créer un
A meeting of
will take up the challenge of creating an
ainsi que la mise en valeur du potentiel
the potential for tourism of the cities that
environnement urbain adapté aux réalités
urban environment that is adapted to the
touristique des villes présentes.
are represented.
decision-makers
et aux plaisirs de l'hiver.
pleasures and realities of winter.
Les villes d'hiver des pays
The winter cities of participating
Cette rencontre leur permettra
The conference will allow them to
participants et les industries des secteurs
countries and industries in the housing,
d'échanger leurs expériences et de
talk about their experiences and share a
de l'habitation, du transport, du vêtement,
transportation, clothing, energy,
partager un héritage commun, la gestion
common heritage, that of managing winter,
de l'énergie, de l'environnement, des
environment, leisure and tourism sectors
de l'hiver dans un contexte d'échanges
in a context of frank discussion and
loisirs et du tourisme présenteront leurs
will showcase their products, their know-
directs et de contacts personnels.
personal contact.
produits, leur savoir-faire et leurs attraits.
how and their attractions.
Le design de cette exposition
The design of the exhibition will
Le Forum
The Forum
s'inspirera d'une trame urbaine d'un
reflect the urban makeup of a busy city
Pour une meilleure
L'activité du forum est centrée sur
The focus of the Forum will be on
quadrilatère très achalandé de Montréal.
block in Montréal.
qualité de vie
l'amélioration de la qualité de vie à
improving quality of life through a variety
Le concours international d'idées
travers les thèmes de l'environnement,
of themes, including the environment,
The International Competition
Towards a better
de l'aménagement urbain et de la santé
urban development, and health and
"A la recherche
Afin de promouvoir une meilleure qualité
In an effort to promote advances in the
par l'activité physique en plein air.
fitness through outdoor activities.
de l'excellence"
de vie en hiver, la 5e Biennale organise
quality of life in winter, the 5th Biennial is
quality of life
Depuis plusieurs décennies les
For decades now, scientific
un concours d'idées novatrices dans les
organizing a competition seeking innovative
progrès de la science et les nouvelles
progress and new technologies have
"In Search
secteurs de l'environnement, de l'activité
ideas in the following categories: the
technologies ont transformé l'art de vivre
continued to transform the art of living in
physique et de l'aménagement urbain.
environment, outdoor fitness activities and
dans les régions froides. L'hiver n'est
cold climates. Winter no longer puts a
of Excellence"
Si vous oeuvrez dans ces secteurs
urban planning.
plus un frein à l'activité des citadins.
dent in the lives of urban dwellers.
et que vous résidez, travaillez ou étudiez
If you are engaged in any of these
La présence de conférenciers de
The workshops and panel
dans une ville nordique, vous pouvez
fields and reside, work or study in a
renommée internationale et l'organisation
discussions will be enriched by keynote
participer à ce concours régi par un jury
northern city, you are eligible to participate
de visites techniques s'ajouteront aux
speakers of international repute and by
international de sept personnes. Ce
in this competition which will be judged by
discussions et échanges en ateliers.
technical tours.
concours offre des prix totalisant
a panel of seven internationally known
86 000$ (CAN) dont un grand prix de
individuals. Competition prizes will total
000$ (CAN).
$86,000 (CDN), including a grand prize of
Toutes les personnes intéressées
$20,000 (CDN).
peuvent obtenir plus d'informations à
For more information, please fill out
l'aide de la carte réponse de ce dépliant.
and return the attached reply card.
oto: Louis Michel Major
5th INTERNATIONAL
5ᵉ BIENNALE
WINTER CITIES
INTERNATIONALE
BIENNIAL
DES VILLES D'HIVER
MONTRÉAL 1992
MONTRÉAL 1992
Activités populaires
Community Activities
Last Name:
Nom:
La Fête des neiges
A la fin du 19e siècle, Montréal a organisé
In the late 19th Century, Montréal
First Name:
Prénom:
le premier festival d'hiver en Amérique.
organized the first winter festival in North
La Fête des Neiges
L'événement a eu tellement de succès
America. The event was such a success
Organization:
Organisme:
que plusieurs autres villes ont imité
that many other cities followed suit and
Montréal et ont tenu des événements
held similar festivals.
Mailing Address:
Adresse postale:
similaires.
Today, La Fête des neiges is a
La Fête des neiges d'aujourd'hui,
modern celebration of winter that
une célébration moderne de l'hiver,
annually attracts over 550,000
Country:
attire plus de 550 000 participants et
Pays:
participants and visitors over a ten (10)-
visiteurs pendant dix (10) jours à chaque
day period.
Postal Code:
Code postal:
année.
Telephone:
Les Internationaux du commerce
Business worldwide
Téléphone:
Rendez-vous
Dans le cadre de la 5e Biennale, les deux
As part of the 5th Biennial, Montréal's
Fax:
Télécopieur:
à Montréal
principales associations de gens d'affaires
two principal business associations, La
de Montréal, La Chambre de commerce du
Chambre de Commerce du Montréal
Please send me more information on the
A Montréal
Montréal métropolitain et le Bureau de
métropolitain and the Montréal Board of
Veuillez me faire de plus amples informations
following items:
sur:
commerce de Montréal, tiendront du 17 au
Trade, will be holding the first edition of
Rendez-vous
21 janvier 1992, la première édition des
Les Internationaux du Commerce de
The Forum
Le forum
Internationaux du commerce de Montréal.
Montréal, from January 17 to 21, 1992.
The Exhibition
L'exposition
Les Internationaux du commerce de
Les Internationaux du Commerce
The Competition
Le concours
Montréal favoriseront les jumelages
de Montréal will encourage business
Les Internationaux du Commerce
Les Internationaux du commerce
d'entreprises afin d'établir des liens
twinnings, in order to establish lasting
d'affaires durables entre les gens d'affaires
commercial ties between Montréal's
des villes participantes et ceux de Montréal.
Business Community and participating
Date:
Date:
cities.
Signature:
Signature:
5th INTERNATIONAL
5e BIENNALE INTERNATIONALE
WINTER CITIES BIENNIAL
DES VILLES D'HIVER
MONTRÉAL 1992
MONTRÉAL 1992
770, rue Sherbrooke Ouest
770, rue Sherbrooke Ouest
11 ième étage
11 ième étage
Montréal (Québec) CANADA
Montréal (Québec) CANADA
IWCC International
H3A 1G1
H3A 1G1
Winter Cities Commitee
Téléphone: (514) 872-0571
Téléphone: (514) 872-0571
Télécopieur: (514) 872-9222
Télécopieur: (514) 872-9222
NICC NORTHERN INTERCITY
CONFERENCE COMMITEE
Conference announcement and call for papers
McGill
CENTRE FOR NORTHERN STUDIES AND RESEARCH
McGILL UNIVERSITY
MONTREAL, CANADA
POLARTECH'92
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DEVELOPMENT
AND COMMERCIAL UTILIZATION
OF TECHNOLOGIES IN POLAR REGIONS
22-25 JANUARY 1992
POLARTECH The international POLARTECH Conferences were established by industrial organizations and
governmental institutions from nordic countries.
The first POLARTECH conferences were held in Helsinki, Finland in 1986, in Trondheim, Norway
in 1988, and in Copenhagen, Denmark in 1990. The POLARTECH '92 conference will be held in
Montreal, Canada, in January 1992.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the POLARTECH conferences is to create an international forum for exchanging
information and discussing experiences and ideas for technology to be applied in Arctic and
Antarctic regions or for use under other extreme conditions.
The POLARTECH Conference focuses on the development and commercial application of polar
technology with emphasis on onshore and offshore hydrocarbon technology, hydropower, and
mining technology in polar regions. Logistics, interaction with local communities, and protection
of the sensitive polar environment are highlighted.
The POLARTECH '92 Organising Committee hereby invites papers for presentation under the
following headings:
THEME A
Application of Polar Technology
Infrastructure and urbanisation
Logistics
Transport and shipping
Communication and navigation
Ice management
Man-technology interaction
Community-project interaction
Application of technology in other challenging environments (deserts, space, deep water, etc.)
THEME B
Offshore and Onshore Hydrocarbon Technology
Exploration and planning
Engineering and construction
Operation and maintenance
Facilities, abandonment and environmental restoration
THEME C
Hydropower and Mining Technology
Exploration and Planning
Construction and Production
THEME D
Polar Environment and Technology
Arctic and Antarctic experiences
Environmental impact studies
Regulation, control and evaluation
Impact of technology on humans and society
THEME E
Small Businesses and Technology
Please return this form to:
POLARTECH '92
Dr. Marianne Stenbaek
Centre for Northern Studies and Research
McGill University
Burnside Hall 720
Tel.: (514) 398-6052
805 Sherbrooke Street West
Fax: (514) 398-8364
Montreal, Canada H3A 2K6
Tlx: 05-268510
Surname
First name
Organization
Postal Address
Country
Telephone
Telefax
Telex
Please send me further information
I plan to participate in the Conference and wish to receive further information
I intend to present a paper related to:
Theme A
Theme B
Theme C
Theme D
Theme E
April 30, 1991 Due date for abstracts. September 30, 1991 Due date for papers
I plan to attend both the Vth International Winter Cities Biennial and the POLARTECH '92 Conference and take
advantage of their combined pre-registration fees rebate
I would like information on participating in a trade show.
Signature
Date
POLARTECH '92 follows the
Vth International Winter Cities
WINTER CITIES
Biennial which will be held
MONTREAL 1992
January 17-21, 1992 in Montreal.
Avis de conférence et appel de communications
McGill
CENTRE D'ÉTUDES ET DE RECHERCHES NORDIQUES
DE L'UNIVERSITÉ McGILL
MONTRÉAL, CANADA
POLARTECH '92
CONFÉRENCE INTERNATIONALE SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ET
L'UTILISATION COMMERCIALE
DES TECHNOLOGIES DANS LES RÉGIONS POLAIRES
22-25 JANVIER 1992
POLARTECH
Les conférences internationales POLARTECH sont une initiative des industriels et des institutions
gouvernementales des pays nordiques.
Les conférences POLARTECH se sont tenues précédemment à Helsinki en Finlande en 1986, à
Trondheim en Norvège en 1988 et à Copenhague, au Danemark en 1990. La conférence POLARTECH
'92 aura lieu à Montréal, au Canada en janvier 1992.
OBJECTIF
L'objectif des conférences POLARTECH est de créer un forum international d'échanges, d'information et
de discussions sur les technologies à appliquer en régions arctiques et antarctiques ou à utiliser dans
des conditions climatiques extrêmes.
La Conférence POLARTECH porte sur le développement et les applications commerciales et
technologiques polaires, notamment sur les techniques d'exploitation des hydrocarbones offshore et sur
terre ferme, sur l'énergie hydraulique et la technologie minière dans les régions polaires. La logistique,
l'interaction avec les collectivités locales et la protection de l'environnement polaire sont également à
l'ordre du jour.
Le comité organisateur de POLARTECH '92 vous invite à venir présenter des communications sur les
thèmes suivants:
THÈME A
Application de la technologie polaire
infrastructure et urbanisation
logistique
transport et expédition
communication et navigation
gestion des glaces
interaction homme-technologie
interaction communauté-projet
application technologique dans d'autres environnements (déserts, espace, eaux profondes, etc.)
THÈME B
Technologie des hydrocarbones offshore et sur terre ferme
exploration et planification
génie et construction
exploitation et maintenance
installations, cession et restauration de l'environnement
THÈME C
Énergie hydraulique et technologie minière
exploration et planification
construction et production
THÈME D
Environnement polaire et technologie
expériences dans l'Arctique et l'Antarctique
études d'impact environnemental
réglementation, contrôle et évaluation
impact de la technologie sur les êtres humains et la société
THÈME E
Petites entreprises et technologie
Veuillez renvoyer ce formulaire à l'adresse suivante:
POLARTECH
Dr. Marianne Stenback
Centre d'études et de Recherches Nordiques
Université McGill
Pavillon Burnside 720
Téléphone (514) 398-6052
805, rue Sherbrooke Ouest
Télécopieur: (514) 398-8364
Montréal, Canada H3A 2K6
Télex:
05-268510
Nom
Prénom
Organisme
Adresse postale
Pays
Téléphone
Télécopieur
Télex
Veuillez me faire parvenir de plus amples renseignements
Je pense participer à la conférence et souhaite obtenir de plus renseignements
J'ai l'intention de présenter une communication:
thème A
thème B
thème C
thème D
thème E
30 avril, 1991 faire parvenir le résumé de votre communication.
30 septembre, 1991 faire parvenir le texte de votre communication.
J'ai l'intention de participer à la fois à la biennale des VILLES D'HIVER et à la Conférence POLARTECH '92 et de
bénéficier d'un rabais sur les frais d'inscription.
Je serais intéressé(e) à participer à une exposition. Veuillez me faire parvenir de plus amples renseignements.
Date
Signature
POLARTECH '92 fait suite à la
Ve Biennale internationale des
VILLES D'HIVER
VILLES D'HIVER qui aura lieu
MONTRÉAL 1992
du 17 au 21 janvier 1992 à Montréal
"INVITATION FOR DR. BROMLEY"
TYPE: INVITATION-SPEECH
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
9121390
SPEECH:
YES
NO
FROM:
CAREY, Ann E,: NATIONAL RESOURCE SOCIETY
DATE OF EVENT: 05/16/91
LOCATION OF EVENT: ARLINGTON, VA
TIME OF EVENT: 08:30AM
SUBJECT:
INVITATION TO SPEECH AT THE OPENING SESSION OF THE
11TH ANNUAL SCIENCE DAY.
RSVP:
04/19/91
CONTACT PERSON:
CONTACT NUMBER:
INVITATION ACCEPTED?
YES
NO
COPIES TO:
REMARKS:
DATE OF LETTER:
04/10/91
DATE RECEIVED: 04/10/91
FILE: P. INVITATION-SPEECH
Sponsor:
Natural Resource Societies
Subject:
Current environmental and natural resource issues
4/16
Audience:
300-400 natural resource scientists and administrators
Date:
May 16-Th
Location:
Arlington, Va.
Contact:
Ann Carey, USDA
Conflicts:
Your calendar says you will be in the Soviet Union,
YES
NO
4/19/91 Regietted to am Carry mn
9121390
NATURAL RESOURCE SOCIETIES
SCIENCE DAY
PRESENTED BY THE WASHINGTON AREA CHAPTERS
THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY
AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY
SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS
THE SOCIETY FOR RANGE MANAGEMENT
SOIL CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA
April 10, 1991
Dr. D. Allen Bromley
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
Executive Office of the President
Fax: 202-395-3261
AF
Dear Dr. Bromley:
This is to invite you to speak at the opening session of the
11th annual SCIENCE DAY '91 on May 16, 1991, in
Washington, D.C. SCIENCE DAY is an annual event at which
300 to 400 natural resource scientists and administrators
from government and the private sector address current
environmental and natural resource issues. It is jointly
sponsored by the Washington, D.C. chapters of the American
SOCIETY
Fisheries Society, Wildlife Society, Society of American
OF
Foresters, Society for Range Management, and Soil and Water
AMERICAN
Conservation Society.
FORESTERS
1900
The theme for this year's event, to be held at the Key
Bridge Marriott Hotel in Arlington, VA, is "NATURAL
RESOURCES: Human Pressures, Changing Values". It will deal
with the pressures of human populations on natural
resources, and the different values that society places on
natural resources as we approach the 21st century. The
topic of the morning's first plenary session is "The Role of
Science in Setting Public Policies for Natural Resources",
and that is the general topic we would like you to address.
You would have 30 minutes for your presentation; the keynote
address is scheduled from 8:30 - 9:00 a.m., in a plenary
session scheduled for 8:30 - 10:00 a.m.
If you have any questions about this request, please contact
me at 245-5008 (Fax 202-447-7690). I hope that you can join
us on May 16, and I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
E Carey
ANN E. CAREY
SOILD
CONSERVATION
Special Assistant to the Chief
SOCIETY
OF AMERICA
for Science and Technology
USDA Soil Conservation Service
and
Program Chair SCIENCE DAY '91
002/002
202 447 7690
16:24
16/01/19
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
DATE 4/10/91
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, D.C. 20013-2890
Number of Pages: Transmittal Sheet +
/
TO:
Wr. D. allen Bromley
Executive Office of the President
Telephone No.
FACS Machine Telephone No. 202-395-3261
FROM:
ann E. Carey
Special assist to the Chief, SCS
Telephone No. 202-245-5008
COMMENTS:
Transmission completed by:
Date
001/002
202 447 7690
16:24
16/01/19
"INVITATION FOR DR. BROMLEY"
TYPE: INVITATION-SPEECH
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121125
SPEECH:
YES
NO
FROM:
MILLER, Michael S.: PERFORMANCE MATERIALS
DATE OF EVENT: 10/14/91
LOCATION OF EVENT: WASHINGTON, D.C.
TIME OF EVENT:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST TO SPEAK DURING THE BUSINESS CONFERENCE FOR
EXECUTIVES IN THE ADVANCED MATERIALS INDUSTRY HELD
BY MCGRAW-HILL'S PERFORMANCE MATERIALS PUBLICATION
AND KLINE & COMPANY.
RSVP:
04/30/91
CONTACT PERSON: MICHAEL MILLER
CONTACT NUMBER: 202/822-4681
INVITATION ACCEPTED?
NO
COPIES TO:
Perry Lindstrom
Dr. Phillips
Thomas Welch
REMARKS:
DATE OF LETTER:
04/04/91
DATE RECEIVED: 04/16/91
FILE: P- INVITATION-SPEECH
9/21/25
Performance Materials
RECEIVED Information Services Company
1156 15th Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005
91 APR 16 A10: 48
Telephone 202/822-4600
FAX 202/293-7482
OFFICE OF THE
April 4, 1991
DIRECTOR
D. Allan Bromley
Chairman
National Critical Materials Council
730 Jackson Place
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dear Dr. Bromley,
McGraw-Hill's Performance Materials publication and the consulting firm Kline & Company,
which concentrates on advanced materials, will hold a two-day business conference in Washington
November 14-15, 1991 for executives in the advanced materials industry.
We would very much appreciate it if you would consider speaking during either of the two days.
The event's theme is "Advanced Composites-Beyond Aerospace in the 1990s" and the audience
will be 50 to 100 of the top decision-makers in the advanced materials industry-from presidents of
companies to directors of business development. No other event in the near future will bring together so
many of this country's key leaders from the advanced materials industry.
Your topic would be fully up to you, though I would suggest it concern the Administration's
doctrine for advanced materials and how the industry could play a role. Other possible areas could include
the Critical Technologies Institute or critical technologies research in general.
I have worked with Perry Lindstrom and attended various PCAST meetings during the past year and
have appreciated your elevation of advanced materials to the top of the Administration's technology
agenda.
Performance Materials is the leading publication for business news on advanced materials and is
read in more than 20 countries. Kline & Company is based in Fairfield, N.J., with offices in Brussels,
Melbourne, Tokyo and Toronto, and is the top U.S. consulting firm on advanced materials.
Please consider this event and the captive audience of advanced materials leaders you would be
addressing. My direct line is 202-822-4681.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Miller
Editor
Aerospace and Defense Group Newsletters
Aerospace Daily
Regional Aviation Weekly
Airports
The Weekly of Business Aviation
Aviation Daily
9/21/25
Performance Materials
RECEIVED Information Services Company
1156 18th Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005
STAPR 16 A10 48
Telephone 202/822-4600
FAX 202/293-7482
OFFICE OF HE
April 4, 1991
DIRECTOR
D. Allan Bromley
Chairman
National Critical Materials Council
730 Jackson Place
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dear Dr. Bromley,
McGraw-Hill's Performance Materials publication and the consulting firm Kline & Company,
which concentrates on advanced materials, will hold a two-day business conference in Washington
November 14-15, 1991 for executives in the advanced materials industry.
We would very much appreciate it if you would consider speaking during either of the two days.
The event's theme is "Advanced Composites-Beyond Aerospace in the 1990s" and the audience
will be 50 to 100 of the top decision-makers in the advanced materials industry-from presidents of
companies to directors of business development. No other event in the near future will bring together so
many of this country's key leaders from the advanced materials industry.
Your topic would be fully up to you, though I would suggest it concern the Administration's
doctrine for advanced materials and how the industry could play a role. Other possible areas could include
the Critical Technologies Institute or critical technologies research in general.
I have worked with Perry Lindstrom and attended various PCAST meetings during the past year and
have appreciated your elevation of advanced materials to the top of the Administration's technology
agenda.
Performance Materials is the leading publication for business news on advanced materials and is
read in more than 20 countries. Kline & Company is based in Fairfield, N.J., with offices in Brussels,
Melbourne, Tokyo and Toronto, and is the top U.S. consulting firm on advanced materials.
Please consider this event and the captive audience of advanced materials leaders you would be
addressing. My direct line is 202-822-4681.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Miller
Editor
Aerospace and Defense Group Newsletters
Aerospace Daily
Regional Aviation Weekly
Airports
The Weekly of Business Aviation
Aviation Daily
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 4, 1991
Dear Mr. Miller:
Thank you for your letter of April 4, 1991, inviting me to address your business
conference scheduled to be held November 14-15, 1991 in Washington, D.C. I
apologize for the much belated response.
As much as I would like to join you and your colleagues, I must regretfully decline.
I will be chairing a two-day meeting that has been on my calendar for some time on
those dates.
I appreciate your thinking of me and send my best wishes for a successful conference.
Sincerely yours,
JAnan D. Allan Bromley Romley.
The Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
Mr. Michael E. Miller
Editor
McGraw-Hill Performance Materials
1156 15th Street, Northwest
Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121579
FROM:
STURGES, Claudia J.: AAAS
TO:
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 05/30/91
SUBJECT: THE SPEECH TO THE AAAS ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE &
ENGINEERING FELLOWS; REQUEST TO DISCUSS OSTP'S ROLE
IN FORMULATING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, HOW IT
INTERACTS WITH AGENCIES & CEQ, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PRIORITIES.
DIRECTORATE
STAFF
ASSIGNED:
ASSIGNED:
ACTION
STAFF
REQUIRED:
ACTION:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
DATE COMPLETED/DEPT:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
Steve Olson
ENVIRONMENT
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
REMARKS:
DATE RECEIVED: 05/31/91
FILE: P INVITATION-SPEECH
9121579
American
Association
for the Advancement of
RECEIVED
Science
Directorate for Science and Policy Programs
1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005
91 MAY 31 P : 54
(202) 326-6600
FAX (202) 371-9526
'OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR
May 30, 1991
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Old Executive Office Building
Room 358
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Dr. Bromley:
On behalf of the 1991 AAAS Environmental Science and Engineering Fellows, I want to thank you
for agreeing to speak to them as part of their orientation program.
Your remarks are scheduled Tuesday, June 4, from 11 - 12 a.m., in Room 180 of the Old Executive
Office Building. In that hour I would ask you to discuss the role OSTP plays in formulating
environmental policy, how the Office interacts with the agencies and CEQ, and perhaps some
discussion of your environmental priorities. If you would talk for about 20 - 30 minutes, that would
allow time for questions at the conclusion.
Enclosed is a list of the 1991 Fellows and a copy of the orientation schedule. I look forward to
seeing you next week.
Sincerely, Clandeng Sturge
Claudia J. Sturges
Manager
AAAS Environmental Science and
Engineering Fellowship Program
CJS/hs
Enclosures
American
Association
for the Advancement of
Science
Directorate for Science and Policy Programs
1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005
(202) 326-6600
FAX (202) 371-9526
1991 AAAS/EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING FELLOWS
Name, Discipline/Institution,
Current Affiliation
Dr. Mary A. Bober
Physiology/Oklahoma State University
University of California, Santa Barbara
Dr. Vera Brankovan
Biological Structure, Engineering, Technology/Seattle City University
Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharm. Research Institute
Dr. Mark A. Brown
Environmental Agricultural Chemistry/Unversity of California, Berkeley
Hazardous Materials Laboratory
Dr. Charles A. Cole
Environmental Science/Rutgers University
Penn State University
Dr. Robert G. Croy
Toxicology/Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge Environmental Inc.
Dr. Marvin Fleischman
Chemical Engineering/Unversity of Cincinnati
Unversity of Louisville
Dr. Hilary I. Inyang
Civil Engineering/Iowa State University
University of Wisconsin, Dept. of Civil Engineering
1
Name, Discipline/Institution,
Current Affiliation
Mr. Keith A. Matthews
Law/Georgetown University
Dewey Ballantine
Dr. Eric A. Pani
Geosciences/Texas Tech University
Northeast Louisiana University
Ms. Christine A. Paszkiet
Materials Science and Engineering/Cornell University
Cornell University
5/7/91
2
American
Association
for the Advancement of
Science
Directorate for Science and Policy Programs
1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005
(202) 326-6600
FAX (202) 371-9526
ORIENTATION SCHEDULE
1991 AAAS EPA Environmental Science and Engineering Fellows
Monday, June 3
AAAS
1333 H Street, NW
10th Floor Board Room
9:00 a.m.
Continental Breakfast
9:30 a.m.
Welcoming Remarks:
Richard S. Nicholson
Executive Officer, AAAS
9:45 a.m.
Albert H. Teich
Director
AAAS Directorate for Science and Policy Programs
10:00 a.m.
Roger Cortesi
Director
EPA Office of Exploratory Research
10:15 a.m.
Claudia J. Sturges
Manager, AAAS/EPA Environmental Science and
Engineering Fellowship Program
10:30 a.m.
Break
10:45 a.m.
Introductions
Monday, June 3 continued
AAAS 10th Floor Board Room
12:00 Noon
Luncheon
William G. Wells, Jr.
Consultant, Office of Science & Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
"Perspectives on Washington"
1:30 p.m.
Leave for Environmental Protection Agency
Take Orange or Blue Metro Line to L'Enfant Plaza
Station, take 7th & D/DOT Exit, walk to 4th St.,SW.
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Meet Mary McCarthy-O'Reilly at
Waterside Mall West Tower (main entrance)
2:15 p.m.
Get visitor passes
2:30 p.m.
Get EPA Badges, Room 3307 Court Yard
3:00 p.m.
Meet with Mentors
Gangplank Restaurant
Rear Deck
600 Water Street, SW
5:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m.
Reception
Invitees include Selection Committee Members, EPA Staff, other friends of the
fellowship program and the 1990-91 AAAS Congressional, Diplomacy, and Arms Control
Science and Engineering Fellows, and the summer 1991 AAAS Mass Media Fellows.
Tuesday, June 4
Old Executive Office Building
17th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Pennsylvania Avenue Entrance - be there at 8:30 am, to allow
time for Security Clearance
Room 180
Environmental Policy in the Executive Branch
9:00 a.m.
Erich Bretthauer
Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
10:00 a.m.
Michael R. Deland
Chairman
White House Council on Environmental Quality
11:00 a.m.
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President for Science & Technology
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
700 Water Street Restaurant
700 Water Street, SW
The Red Room
12:30
Luncheon
Deanna Richards
Senior Program Officer
National Academy of Engineering
"Looking Back: Some Advice from an Ex-Fellow"
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 103, North East Mall
401 M Street, SW
Overview of EPA
2:00 p.m.
Mary McCarthy - O'Reilly
Program Manager
EPA Office of Research Program Management
2:30 p.m.
Pollution Prevention:
Gerald Kotas
Director, Pollution Prevention Division
Office of Pollution Prevention
Tuesday, June 4 continued
Environmental Protection Agency
3:00 p.m.
Nonregulatory Programs:
Eileen B. Claussen (invited)
Director, Office of Atmospheric
and Indoor Air Programs
3:30 p.m.
Regulatory Programs:
Joseph Cotruvo
Director, Health and Environmental Review Division,
Office of Toxic Substances
Wednesday, June 5
Congressional Research Service
The James Madison Building, LM 423
1st Street and Independence Avenue, SE
Science and Policy Division Conference Room
Legislative Branch and the Environment
9:00 a.m.
Science and Policy Research Division Staff
10:30 a.m.
Break
10:45 a.m.
Environment and Natural Resources Division Staff
Congressional Research Service
Montpelier Room
6th Floor Madison Building
12:00 Noon
Luncheon with Congressional Research Service Staff
AAAS 10th Floor Board Room
2:30 p.m.
Stephen D. Nelson
Director, AAAS Program on Science, Technology
and Government
"How the Budget Drives the Process"
Thursday, June 6
Office of Technology Assessment
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Conference Room D
Overview of ota Activities
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 Noon
Howard Levenson
Project Director, Oceans and Environment Program
"Welcome"
Robert Niblock
Program Manager, Oceans and Environment Program
"Introduction to OTA"
Robin Roy
Senior Analyst, Energy and Materials Program
"Energy Efficiency in the Federal Government"
Daryl Chubin
Senior Analyst, Science, Education
and Transportation Program
"Federally-funded Research; Decisions for a Decade"
Emilia Govan
Senior Analyst, Oceans and Environment Program
"Complex Cleanup: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear
Weapons Production"
Hunan Dynasty
215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
12:30 p.m.
Luncheon with OTA Staff
Office of Technology Assessment
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Conference Room D
Public Interest Groups and Environmental Policy
2:30 - 4:00 p.m.
Moderator: Robert Rycroft
George Washington University
Program on Science and Technology and Public Policy
Howard Geller
Executive Director
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
Thursday, June 6 continued
Office of Technology Assessment
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Conference Room D
Kevin Fay
Executive Director
Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy
Daniel Becker
Lobbyist
Sierra Club
Henry Cole
Science and Policy Director
Clean Water Action Fund
Friday, June 7
AAAS 1st Floor Conference Room
10:00 a.m.
Law, the Courts and the Environment
Jonathan Turley
Associate Professor of Law
National Law Center
George Washington University
Old Ebbitt Grill
675 15th Street, NW
Near 15th and G Streets
12:15 p.m. Luncheon
The National Science Foundation and Environmental Issues
W. Franklin Harris
Executive Officer, Biological, Behavioral, and
Social Sciences, NSF
Friday, June 7 continued
National Academy of Sciences
National Research Council
2101 C Street, NW
Room 180
2:00 p.m.
Briefing by National Research Council Staff
James J. Reisa
Director
Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology
Richard Thomas
Program Director
Toxicology and Risk Management
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE
Invites applications for the
Summer 1991
AAAS Environmental Science and
Engineering Fellowships
PROGRAM: Fellows will spend ten weeks (June 3
and energy. A brief description of EPA's priorities for
through August 9) working as special research con-
1991 is enclosed.
sultants with the Office of Research and Development
(ORD) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CRITERIA: Prospective Fellows must be postdoc-
(EPA) in Washington, DC. Fellows will undertake a
toral to mid-career professionals, show exceptional
detailed, future-oriented research project of mutual
competence in a relevant professional area. have a
interest to the Fellow and one of EPA's research or
broad professional background, and have a strong
program offices and prepare a report at the completion
interest and some experience in applying scientific or
of the summer's work. The program includes a week-
other professional knowledge toward the identification
long orientation to EPA and relevant congressional
and assessment of future environmental problems.
and executive branch operations, as well as a weekly
Fellows are expected to be critical thinkers, articulate,
seminar program on environmental issues and science,
adaptable, and able to work with a variety of people
technology and public policy.
from different professional backgrounds. Persons may
apply from any physical, biological, or behavioral
PURPOSE: The purpose of the fellowship program is
science field, any field of engineering, or any other
to assist ORD in identifying and assessing the signifi-
relevant professional field. Applicants must be resi-
cance of long-range environmental problems and
dents of the U.S.
opportunities. Broad areas of research interest within
EPA include: environmental risk assessment; biologi-
AWARDS: In cooperation with EPA. AAAS will
cal pesticides; acid deposition; mobile source air
select ten Environmental Science and Engineering
pollution; oxidants; gases and particles; global cli-
Fellows for the summer of 1991. The stipend is $850
mate; stratospheric ozone depletion; municipal waste
per week plus nominal relocation and travel expenses.
water and spills; drinking water; hazardous waste;
The deadline for receipt of applications is March 1,
chemical testing and assessment: pesticides; radiation;
1991.
Further information about the program and detailed application information are available from:
Environmental Science and Engineering Fellows Program
American Association for the Advancement of Science
1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005
202/326-6600
Minorities and persons with disabilities are especially encouraged to apply.
The continuation of this program, now in its eleventh year, is contingent upon the availability of funds.
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121714
ORIGINATOR: 02
STATUS C
DIRECTORATE STATUS
FROM:
SPENCER, Jean E.: UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SYSTEM
TO:
DR. D.A. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 06/07/91
SUBJECT: INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE
INAUGURATION OF CHANCELLOR LANGENBERG.
DIRECTORATE
STAFF
ASSIGNED:
ASSIGNED:
ACTION
STAFF
REQUIRED:
ACTION:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
STAFF DUE DATE
DATE COMPLETED:
DATE COMPLETED/DEPT:
COPIES TO: D. Allan Bromley
Steve Olson
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
PHONE:
EXT:
REMARKS:
OSTP RECEIVED: 06/11/91
FILE: P INVITATION SPEECH FOLLOW-UP
DEPT RECEIVED:
9121714
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SYSTEM
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHANCELLOR
OF
UNIVERSITY
MARYLANDO
3300 Metzerott Road
SASTEM
11 P5: 25
(301) 853-3701
Adelphi, Maryland 20783
THE
FAX (301) 853-4761
1807
June 7, 1991
OFFICE OF The
DIRECTOR
The Honorable D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
Old Executive Office Building
17th and Pennsylvania Avenues, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dear Dr. Bromley:
I am pleased that you will participate in the inauguration of Chancellor
Langenberg on June 26, 1991. This letter includes information for members
of the academic procession.
The inauguration will begin at 2:30 p.m.; members of the procession are
asked to arrive at 1:45 p.m. for robing. Please enter by the rear entrance
of the Lyric, 1404 Maryland Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland. An attendant will
meet you at the door.
All members of the procession will wear academic robes, hoods, and caps, as
appropriate. Please bring academic attire with you, unless your order was
placed through the System Administration Office. Attire ordered by the
System Administration for members of the Board of Regents and elected
officials will be hanging in the outer room in the robing area. Marshals
will assist in robing. Signs will indicate robing areas for platform
guests and for other members of the procession. Lockers and restrooms are
located in both robing areas. There will be security in the robing area
throughout the ceremony and reception.
You may park in University of Baltimore lots 7A and 7B on Bolton Street. A
map of the University is enclosed with this letter.
Also enclosed are 1) a copy of the program, 2) a copy of the order of
procession, 3) a seating chart indicating the seating of platform guests,
and 4) guidelines for speakers. Marshals will assist in guiding the
procession and in seating members of the procession. There will be
reserved seating for members of the procession who are not seated on the
platform.
I appreciate your helping to make the inauguration a memorable ceremony.
If you have questions about the program, please call me or Dr. Sheila
Tolliver at 301 853-3701.
Sincerely yours
Jean Spence
Jean E. Spencer
Chair, Inauguration Committee
No
Dr. Robert E. Stevenson - 1925
American Type Culture Collection
12301 Parklawn Drive
Rockville, MD 20852-1776
No
Mr. Allan W. Ostar, President - 1961
American Association of State
College and Universities
Suite 700
One Dupont Circle
Washington, D.C. 20036
No
Dr. Jim Harrison - 1975
Association of Urban Universities
1225 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 306
Washington, DC 20036
Representatives of NASULGC, AASCU, AAU Institutions
Yes
Chancellor John J. Quinn - 1794
University of Tennessee at Knoxville
Knoxville, Tennessee 37996
Yes
Dr. Donald A. MacPhee - 1826
President
State University of New York
College at Fredonia
Fredonia, NY 14063
Yes
Dr. William W. Chmurny - 1866
Chancellor
University of Wisconsin - Platteville
1 University Plaza
Platteville, WI 53818-3099
Yes
Dr. Robert J. Dillman - 1867
President
Fairmont State College
Locust Avenue
Fairmont, WV 26554
Yes
Dr. Gordon H. Lamb - 1869
President
Northeastern Illinois University
5500 N. Saint Louis Avenue
Chicago, IL 60625-4699
2
Dr. Paul LeClerc - 1870
Yes
President
City University of New York
Hunter College
695 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10021
President Walter Washington - 1871
Yes
Alcorn State University
Lorman, Mississippi 39096-9998
President James D. McComas - 1872
Yes
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Dr. Robert N. Aebersold - 1889
Yes
President
Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania
Slippery Rock, PA 16057-9989
Dr. Thomas E. Everhart - 1891
Yes
President
California Institute of Technology
1201 East California Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 91125
Dr. Hazo W. Carter, Jr. - 1891
Yes
President
West Virginia State College
Institute, WV 25112
Dr. Robert A. Corrigan - 1899
Yes
President
San Francisco State University
1600 Holloway Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94132
Dr. G. Warren Smith -1925
Yes
President
Southeastern Louisiana University
100 West Dakota
Hammond, LA 70402
Representatives of Other Regional Schools
Dr. Martin Meyerson- 1740
Yes
President Emeritus
University of Pennsylvania
2016 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
3
Rev. William J. Bryon - 1887
Yes
President
Catholic University of America
620 Michigan Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20064
Representatives of Other Maryland Institutions
Dr. Charles H. Trout - 1782
Yes
President
Washington College
Chestertown, MD 21620
Rev. Joseph A. Sellinger, S.J. - 1852
Yes
President Loyola College
4051 North Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21210-2699
Dr. Robert H. Chambers - 1867
Yes
President
Western Maryland College
Westminster, MD 21157
Dr. Rhoda M. Dorsey - 1885
Yes
President
Goucher College
1021 Dulaney Valley Road
Towson, MD 21204
Dr. G. William Troxler - 1932
Yes
President
Capitol College
11301 Springfield Road
Laurel, MD 20708
Dr. Robert E. Parilla - 1946
Yes
President
Montgomery College
Central Administration
900 Hungerford Drive
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Dr. James D. Tschechtelin - 1947
Yes
President
New Community College off Baltimore
2901 Liberty Heights Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21215
4
Yes
Dr. Lee J. Betts - 1957
President
Frederick Community College
7923 Opposumtown Pike
Frederick, Maryland 21701
Dr. Thomas E. Florestano - 1961
Yes
President
Anne Arundel Community College
101 College Parkway
Arnold, Maryland 21012
Dr. Dwight A. Burrill - 1966
Yes
President
Howard Community College
Little Patuxent Parkway
Columbia, Maryland 21044
Dr. Charles W. Simmons - 1972
Yes
President
Sojourner-Douglass College
500 North Caroline Street
Baltimore, MD 21205
Mr. Robert M. Duggan - 1980
Yes
President
Traditional Acupuncture Institute, Inc.
American City Building, Suite 100
Columbia, MD 21044
REPRESENTATIVES OF UMS INSTITUTIONS
UMAB
1807
Yes
Dr. Errol Reese
President
Dr. Warren Morganstein
No
Dean
No
Dr. Michael Kelly
Dean
Dr. Richard Richards
No
Dean
No
Dr. Barbara Heller
Dean
5
No
Dr. David Knapp
Dean
No
Dr. Howard Altstein
Dean
No
Dr. Steven Max
Dean
No
Dr. James P. Flynn
Dean
No
Dr. Preston Shelton
Faculty Senate
No
Ms. Cathleen Snelling
Student Government
No
Dr. Morton Rapoport
UMMS
UMCP
1856
Yes
Dr. William Kirwan
President
No
Dr. Kathryn Costello
Vice President
No
Dr. Robert Dorfman
Vice President
No
Dr. Charles Sturtz
Vice President
No
Dr. William Thomas, Jr.
Vice President
No
Dr. Bruce Fretz
Campus Senate
No
Ms. Vicki Gruber
Student Government
BSU
1865
Yes Yes
Dr. James Lyons
President
6
Dr. Ida Brandon
No
Vice President
No
Dr. Zola Boone
Vice President
Mr. E.R. Golden
No
Vice President
Dr. O.E. Jack
No
Faculty Senate
Mr. Darren Swain
No
Student Government
TSU
1866
Dr. Hoke Smith
Yes
President
Dr. Robert Caret
No
Vice President
Mr. Dan McCarthy
No
Vice President
Dr. Donald McCulloh
No
Vice President
Ms. Dorothy Siegel
No
Vice President
Dr. Neil Gallagher
No
Faculty Senate
Mr. David Cameron
No
Student Government
UMES
1886
Dr. William Hytche
Yes
President
Dr. Edward Ellis
No
Vice President
Dr. Herman Franklin
No
Vice President
Mr. Ronnie Holden
No
7
Vice President
No
Dr. Jean Moore
Vice President
No
Dr. Carolyn Brooks
Faculty Senate
Mr. Karl White
No
Student Government
FSU
1898
Yes
Dr. Harold Delaney
Acting President
Dr. Kenneth Stewart
No
Vice President
No
Mr. Richard Metz
Vice President
Dr. Alice Manicur
No
Vice President
Mr. Mark Atchison
No
Vice President
Dr. Karen Holbrook
No
Faculty Senate
No
Mr. Todd Hancock
Student Government
CSC
1900
Yes
Dr. Calvin Burnett
President
Dr. Carlton Molette
No
Vice President
Mr. Gregory Davis
No
Vice President
Mr. Charles Wright
No
Vice President
Dr. Clayton McNeill
No
Vice President
8
Ms. Myra Chichester
No
Faculty Senate
Mr. Kunle Fagbenle
No
Student Government
SSU
1925
Dr. Thomas Bellavance
Yes
President
Dr. K. Nelson Butler
No
Vice President
Mr. Joseph Gilbert
No
Vice President
Dr. Frederick Kundell
No
Faculty Senate
Miss Lynn Maguire
No
Student Government
UB
1925
Dr. H. Mebane Turner
Yes Yes
President
Dr. Catherine Gira
No
Vice President
Dr. Daniel Costello
No
Vice President
Dr. Wayne Markert
No
Dean
No
Ms. Rebecca Korzec
Faculty Senate
No
Ms. Kate Kppel
Student Government
Mr. Craig Frechette
No
Student Government
9
UMUC
1947
Yes
Dr. Benjamin Massey
President
No
Dr. David Montgomery
Vice President
No
Mrs. Vida Bandis
Vice President
No
Dr. Julian Jones
Vice President
No
Dr. Julie Porosky
Vice President
No
Ms. Adelaide Lagnese
Faculty Senate
No
Mr. Larry Reynolds
Student Government
UMBC
1966
Yes
Dr. Michael Hooker
President
Dr. Freeman Hrabowski
No
Executive Vice President
No
Dr. Arthur O. Pittenger
Vice President
Mrs. Constance Beims
No
Vice President
No
Mr. Mark Behm
Vice President
No
Dr. Susan Kitchen
Vice President
No
Dr. Robert Rasera
Faculty Senate
No
Mr. David Smith
Student Government
10
MARYLAND INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
1888/1914
Dr. Raymond J. Miller
Yes
President
Dr. Robert Kennedy
No
Director, AES
Dr. Craig Oliver
No
Director, CES
Mr. Kenneth Stafford
No
Dr. J. Lee Majeski
No
Faculty Senate
CEES
1973
Dr. Donald Boesch
Yes
President
Dr. Wayne Bell
No
Vice President
Mr. Steven Wilson
No
Vice President
Dr. Robert E. Ulanowicz
No
Faculty Senate
Ms. Joan McKearnan
No
Student
MBI
1984
Dr. Rita Colwell
Yes
President
Dr. Tom Poulos
No
Director, CARB
Dr. Fred Singleton
No
Director, COMB
Dr. Edmund Tramont
No
Director, MBC
Dr. Antonio Moreira
No
Director, CBM
11
Dr. William Weigand
No
Director, CBM
Dr. Chris D'Elia
No
Director, Sea Grant
Dr. Darrell Hueth
No
Director, CPIB
Dr. Theodor Diener
No
Director, CAB
Other Platform Guests
Dr. John S. Toll
Yes
Chancellor Emeritus
Dr. Shaila Aery
Yes
Secretary, Maryland Commission for Higher Education
12
SYSTEM REPRESENTATIVES
Dr. Jean Spencer
Yes
Deputy Chancellor
Mr. John Martin
Yes
Acting Vice Chancellor
Mr. Donald Myers
Yes
Vice Chancellor
BOARD OF REGENTS MEMBERS
Dr. Albert Whiting
Yes
Secretary
Mrs. Ilona Hogan
Yes
Treasurer
Ms. Constance Unseld
Yes
Assistant Secretary
Mrs. Margaret Alton
Yes
The Hon. Mary Arabian
Yes
Mr. Richard Berndt
Yes
Mr. Benjamin Brown
Yes
Mr. Earle Palmer Brown
Yes
Mr. Wayne A. Cawley, Jr.
Yes
Mr. Charles W. Cole, Jr.
Yes
Mrs. Ann Hull
Yes
Mr. Harry Lord
Yes
Ms. Joann M. McCartney
Yes
Mr. Franklin P. Perdue
Yes
Dr. Louis Kaplan
Yes Yes
UM Regent Emeritus
Mr. Roger Blunt
Yes Yes
Vice Chairman
13
Yes Yes
Mr. George McGowan
Chairman
OTHER PLATFORM GUESTS
The Hon. William D. Schaefer
Yes Yes
Governor
Yes
The Hon. Lucille Maurer
State Treasurer
The Hon. Louis Goldstein
Yes
Comptroller of the Treasury
Yes
The Hon. J. Joseph Curran
Attorney General
Yes
Dr. Patricia Langenberg
Yes Yes
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Asst. to the President for Science and Technology and Director,
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Dr. William Richardson - 1876
Yes Yes
President
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Md.
Yes Yes
Dr. Robert Atwell
President, American Council on Education
Yes Yes
Mr. Quentin Lawson
Vice Chairman, Md. Higher Education Commission
Yes Yes
Mr. David Lasher
Chairman, Systemwide Student Council
Yes Yes
Dr. Amos White
Chairman, Systemwide Faculty Council
Yes Yes
Dr. Donald Langenberg
Chancellor
14
white Imarshal Reese Duggan
Kiswan
I hasher Thousan Anwell Lord / Nam Icole simmuns Betts
PLATFORM SEATING ARRANGEMENT
AS OF JUNE 7, 1991
Iparilla
the
varial
leurran
/Goldskin Imaurer lungeld I Nogan Impers Imartin l Aery 1Toll Trout Buron
Colwell Ismik Incorrigan carter
Schaeler Imaguan Boeseh
/Blunt
1211:00
1 Nooker
Kaplan
\Turner
/hons
\sparks
Bunnett belaney litytche hamb \smith
GUIDELINES FOR GREETERS
INAUGURATION OF CHANCELLOR DONALD N. LANGENBERG
JUNE 26, 1991
We are delighted you will be bringing greetings at the Inauguration of Chancellor Donald
N. Langenberg on June 26.
For your convenience, we offer the following guidelines to enable you to plan your
remarks:
1.
Please take your seat on the stage in the front row as you process to the
platform (the red velvet chairs are reserved for your use).
2.
You will be summoned to the podium and introduced by H. Mebane Turner,
president of the University of Baltimore, when it is your turn to offer
remarks.
3.
Please be brief. You should prepare approximately two minutes of spoken
text.
4.
Please don't cite everyone seated on the stage. It will be sufficient to open
your greetings by acknowledging Governor Schaefer, Chancellor
Langenberg, and "honored guests."
5.
Please be upbeat.
6.
Please personalize the content of your remarks.
7.
Please feel free to express your expectations of the University of Maryland
System under the leadership of Chancellor Langenberg.
For your information, the entire ceremony will be videotaped. Please forward a copy of
your prepared remarks to us in advance of the ceremony to be bound for presentation to
Chancellor Langenberg.
We hope you find these guidelines helpful. If you have questions, comments, or
concerns, please call:
Dr. Jean E. Spencer
Deputy Chancellor
The University of Maryland System
3300 Metzerott Rd.
Adelphi, MD 20783
(301)853-3701
6/11
Please close
out - DAB
has been
there + bach!
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
INVITATION-SPEECH
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121659
ORIGINATOR: 02
STATUS I
DIRECTORATE STATUS
FROM:
OLLERHEAD, R.W.: UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH
TO:
DR. D.A. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 05/29/91
SUBJECT: RE: DR. BROMLEY'S VISIT TO THE UNIVERSITY. REQUEST
TO GIVE A 15/20 MINUTE OVERVIEW OF MAJOR ISSUES TO
THE PHYSICS FACULTY MEMBERS.
DIRECTORATE
STAFF
ASSIGNED: D. Allan Bromley
ASSIGNED:
ACTION
STAFF
REQUIRED: AS NECESSARY
ACTION:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
STAFF DUE DATE
DATE COMPLETED:
DATE COMPLETED/DEPT:
COPIES TO: Steve Olson
WHITE HOUSE TRACKING #:
CONTACT PERSON:
PHONE:
EXT:
REMARKS:
OSTP RECEIVED: 06/07/91
FILE: P INVITATION-SPEECH FOLLOW UP
DEPT RECEIVED:
9121659
UNIVERSITY
GUELPH
RECEIVED
May 29, 1991
COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE 7 43
Department of Physics
Office of the Chair
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
OFFICE OF THE
Executive Office of the President
DIRECTOR
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20506
U.S.A.
Dear Dr. Bromley:
Thank you for your telephone call regarding your visit to Guelph. I am sorry I missed you.
As I understand it, you will be met at Toronto airport by a private limousine service ("Red
Car") at the ground transportation booth, which will bring you to the College Inn, adjacent to the
University of Guelph campus. If you would call me at the number given below when you are settled,
I will meet you at the College Inn and bring you to the university.
Our physics faculty members would welcome the opportunity to hear your views on science
policy, in the U.S.A. certainly, and also your perceptions as far as Canada is concerned. Perhaps you
could give a fifteen or twenty minute overview of major issues, and we could have an open and
informal discussion. We would plan to invite our graduate students, who clearly have a vested
interest in these matters! Topics of interest would include "big science" versus "little science",
industrial support (or lack of it) for science, the best strategies for granting agencies in times of
limited budgets (e.g. a little bit for everyone, or major funding for a few "stars"), the future of SSC
and/or the kaon factory, etc. This will be followed by a reception from 5:30 to 6:30.
Plans for dinner have been altered since I wrote to you previously. It turns out that the
annual dinner for the University Senate and the Board of Governors is being held that night, and
many of the people I would like you to meet will be there. The President has kindly extended an
invitation to you to join us at the dinner. The Dean of our college (Iain Campbell) and the Vice-
President Academic (Jack R. MacDonald) are both accelerator physicists, and former members of the
Physics Department, and would be pleased to have the opportunity to chat with you. You will be
seeing John Kuehner and Peter Egelstaff the next day at luncheon, following Convocation.
I trust these plans are satisfactory. I look forward to seeing you next week.
Yours sincerely,
Robin
R.W. Ollerhead, Chair,
RWO/bem
Department of Physics.
GUELPH
ONTARIO
CANADA
N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 EXT 3771
FAX (519) 836-9967
[email protected]
"INVITATION FOR DR. BROMLEY"
TYPE: INVITATION-SPEECH
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121513
SPEECH:
YES
NO
FROM:
MAGAZINE, Alan H.: HIMA
DATE OF EVENT: 06/04/91
LOCATION OF EVENT: MADISON HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
TIME OF EVENT: 07:30PM
SUBJECT:
INVITATION TO ADDRESS THE HIMA BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT
THEIR BOARD DINNER.
RSVP:
05/28/91
CONTACT PERSON:
CONTACT NUMBER:
INVITATION ACCEPTED?
YES
NO
COPIES TO:
LIFE SCIENCES
Regulted to
REMARKS:
5/30/91 - m arilyn!
mn
DATE OF LETTER:
05/22/91
DATE RECEIVED: 05/28/91
FILE: P INVITATION-SPEECH
9/2/513
HIMA
RECEIVED
HEALTH INDUSTRY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
91 MAY 28 A9: 23
ALAN H. MAGAZINE
PRESIDENT
OFFICE DIRECTOR
May 22, 1991
D. Allen Bromley
Assistant to the President
Science and Technology
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Dr. Bromley:
You may recall that shortly after you were sworn in you
accepted my invitation to address the Council on
Competitiveness Board of Directors at a luncheon meeting. I
have since become President of the Health Industry
Manufacturers Association, an organization of approximately
300 companies that manufacture 95 percent of this country's
medical devices, diagnostics and health information systems.
It is a pleasure to extend an invitation to you to address
the HIMA Board of Directors and guests at our upcoming Board
Dinner at 7:30 p.m., June 4 at the Madison Hotel here in
Washington. I am enclosing our recently released report,
Competitiveness of the U.S. Health Care Technology Industry
for your information.
I very much hope that you will be able to join us on the
evening of June 4. If you have any questions, please don't
hesitate to let me know. I look forward to hearing from
you.
Best regards,
Alla
Alan H. Magazine
AHM:rll
Enclosure
World Leaders in Health Care Innovation
1030 15TH STREET, N.W.. SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-1598
(202) 452-8240
FAX (202) 289-1978
HIMA
HEALTH INDUSTRY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
COMPETITIVENESS
OF THE U.S.
HEALTH CARE
TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY
Contribution
to the U.S.
Economy
and Trade
World Leaders in Health Care Innovation
COMPETITIVENESS
OF THE U.S.
HEALTH CARE
TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY
Contribution
to the U.S.
Economy
and Trade
Project Director:
Ed Rozynski
Vice President, International
Matt Gallivan
Director, International
© 1991 Health Industry Manufacturers Association
Report # 91-2
HIMA
No portion of this publication may be
reprinted or reproduced without the
express written permission of the
Health Industry Manufacturers Association
Copyright ©1991 by the
Health Industry Manufacturers Association.
All rights reserved.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
i
PREFACE
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
INTRODUCTION
6
A History of Growth and Innovation
6
Important Terms
7
Looking to the Future
8
I. PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND EMPLOYMENT
10
A Major Contributor to U.S. Manufacturing Growth
11
Employment in the Health Care Technology Industry
11
II. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
13
Bilateral Trade Flows
14
Composition of Medical Products Trade Flows
16
Export Intensity and Import Penetration Ratios
17
III. INNOVATION
19
Research and Development Spending
19
FDA Medical Device Approvals
20
Medical Products Patents
20
IV. PROSPECTS
22
Growth Projections
22
Negative Scenario
23
Positive Scenario
27
V. CONCLUSION
29
VI. APPENDICES
30
Appendix A: Notes on Data
30
Appendix B: SIC Codes
31
Appendix C: Tables
35
VII. NOTES
56
HIMA
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by Ed
Rozynski, HIMA Vice President for
International, and Matthew Gallivan,
Director for International.
The report was made possible by
the cooperation of many other
members of HIMA's staff, including
Marie Briones and Beverly
Pettigrew, as well as U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce officials, includ-
ing Alan Dunn and Michael Fuchs.
This report was edited by Leslie
Albin and Adam Kernan-Schloss, of
Kernan-Schloss Associates, and
designed by Carter/Cosgrove &
Company.
iv
HIMA
LIST OF FIGURES
1. U.S. Health Care Technology Industry Production, 1990
1
2. U.S. Health Care Technology Industry Fact Sheet, 1990-1995
3
3. U.S. Health Care Technology Industry Trade Surplus, 1985-1990
6
4. U.S. Production of Medical Devices and Diagnostic Products, 1987-1990
10
5. U.S. Production and Consumption of Health Care Technology Products, 1980-1990
11
6. Employment in the Health Care Technology Industry, 1987-1990
11
7. U.S. Exports and Imports of Health Care Technology Products, 1984-1990
13
8. U.S. Medical Products Exports, 1987-1990
13
9. U.S. Medical Products Imports, 1987-1990
14
10. Major Purchasers of U.S. Medical Products Exports, 1980 and 1990
15
11. Major Suppliers of U.S. Medical Products Imports, 1980 and 1990
15
12. Export Intensity Ratios for Selected U.S. Industries, 1977-1990
18
13. Import Penetration Ratios for Selected U.S. Industries, 1977-1990
18
14. R&D as a Percentage of Sales in 1988 and 1989
19
15. Ownership of U.S. Medical Device Patents, 1980-1990
21
16. Growth Rate Projections for Selected U.S. Industries, 1991
22
17. U.S. Health Care Technology Industry Growth, 1990-1995
23
18. U.S. Production of Health Care Technology Products, 1985-1995
23
19. Projected Trade Surplus for Medical Products Under Current Environment, 1985-1995
24
20. Potential Negative Developments
24
21. Relative Competitiveness of U.S. Industry
27
HIMA
PREFACE
Health care technology can be
The U.S. health care technology
the very nature of their business to
awe-inspiring - the balloon catheter
industry has flourished during the
global trends and to the fast pace of
used to repair the fragile heart of an
trend of global competition that has
change - are alert to challenges
unborn baby as the infant rests in her
stymied so many other American
ahead that, if not well met, could
mother's womb.
industries. In fact, over the past two
weaken the U.S. health care technol-
It can be high tech - the artificial
decades, while import displacement
ogy industry's vitality to the detri-
lungs that help the 70-year-old
has devastated communities that had
ment of each and every American.
librarian to breathe.
relied for years on the local mill or
These challenges are arising both
It can be small and simple - - the
factory, this industry has proven by
on the domestic U.S. scene and
suture that helps patch the Little
example that American industry can
abroad. But, fortunately, there is
Leaguer's leg.
compete - and win - in global
much U.S. industry and policymakers
And it can be preventive and
markets.
can and must - do to safeguard
practical - the immunization for the
During the past five years, for
the nation's wealth and health in both
infant or the mammography screen-
example, the exports of this industry
arenas.
ing that saves the life of the infant's
have increased at a double-digit rate.
For instance, there can be no
41-year-old mother.
In 1990, the industry rang up an
doubt that the global marketplace the
The manufacturers of medical
estimated $6.5 billion in exports and
industry will confront in the 1990s
devices and diagnostic products who
a $3.2 billion trade surplus, while at
will be even more competitive than
make up America's $31.2 billion
the same time providing high-value
that of the 1980s. The unification of
health care technology industry
jobs for more and more Americans
the European Community (EC) in
produce a vast array of life-saving
- nearly a quarter of a million, in
1992 will help forge larger and
and life-enhancing equipment and
fact.
stronger firms in that 12-nation
supplies. These include surgical and
This deeply ingrained export
market. Already dominant German
medical instruments, electromedical
mentality, which other industries are
firms should continue to prosper in
apparatus, diagnostic imaging
just now trying to develop, is one of
this environment. The liberation of
equipment, in vitro diagnostic
two factors that more than any other
the East Bloc and the trade liberaliza-
products and much more. They also
explain why the medical products
tion of Mexico and other Latin
make health information systems -
industry has succeeded while others
American countries will spawn new
computer hardware and software
have failed.
business and investment opportuni-
designed to process everything from
The second factor is a tradition of
ties that will help local and foreign
patient records to lab and blood bank
technological innovation and rapid,
companies compete against U.S.
data - an increasingly important
but careful, product commercializa-
companies in world markets. The
segment of the health care technology
tion. The health care technology
newly industrialized nations of the
industry.
industry invests an average of some 6
Pacific Rim will be larger and
The products of this industry are
percent of sales in research and
tougher competitors in the more
not only world-class in terms of
development - - twice the average of
advanced technology industries,
quality and technological sophistica-
all other American manufacturers.
including health care technology.
tion, but also world-class in terms of
Given these two strengths and the
And Japan will continue to improve
the contributions they make to the
industry's history of success, it would
its technological and manufacturing
quality of human life. The more than
be easy to become complacent, to
prowess while extending its global
300 companies that belong to the
expect the stream of life-sustaining
reach. With trade playing an
Health Industry Manufacturers
innovations and the large trade
increasingly important role in the
Association (HIMA) account for over
surpluses to continue of their own
prosperity of both the U.S. health
90 percent of the health care technol-
accord. The fact is, however, that the
care technology industry and our
ogy sales in the United States.
industry's leaders - - sensitized by
nation as a whole, it is vitally
ii
HIMA
important that American
product approval process will take. If
policymaking on behalf of
policymakers persevere in their
they cannot plan realistically for
government - coupled with contin-
efforts to establish and maintain a
these factors, they cannot survive. If
ued enterprise and innovation on
level playing field.
they cannot survive, the nation will
behalf of industry — can guarantee
On the regulatory front, proposed
lose their entrepreneurial skills, their
Americans the rising standard of
changes in U.S. and EC regulations
technical innovation and their
living and the rising standard of
stand in startling contrast to trends in
economic contributions for all time.
health to which they are entitled.
other parts of the world. As the
To understand how and why the
economies of Eastern Europe and the
changing national and international
Soviet Union struggle toward more
environment affects this industry and
open markets and a freer private
all those who depend on it, it is
sector, the U.S. and EC governments
helpful to review major trends and
are contemplating policies that could
the worldwide market position of
produce more regulation and make
U.S. medical products manufacturers.
innovation more difficult, especially
This report provides just such a
during the next several years. The
review. A second volume of this
uncertainty that is being created by
report, which analyzes world markets
the new U.S. and EC medical device
and opportunities in greater depth,
legislation will take its toll until the
should be available in late 1991.
new legislation is implemented and
HIMA plans to update and reissue
tested in the marketplace. At that
both volumes periodically.
time, it is possible that industry will
This first volume attempts to put
benefit from the new U.S. and EC
the contribution that the health care
regulatory schemes and from any
technology industry makes to
resulting harmonization of regulation.
America's economy and international
Although it is important that we all
trade performance in perspective. It
continue to work to ensure that health
is designed to be used by both
care technology is safe, effective
policymakers and executives as they
and provided at reasonable cost, it is
address the complex business,
also important that regulatory and
regulatory and trade issues facing the
cost-control measures not handicap,
industry. These issues are not only
even temporarily, the innovativeness
complex, they are vital - to the
that is a major strength of the
industry itself, of course, but also to
industry and its key to international
the U.S. economy and to individual
competitiveness.
Americans.
Contrary to common belief,
We have seen strong industries
medical products manufacturers are
falter before. We know how the
not all huge corporations. Two-thirds
impact ripples through the nation's
of HIMA's members are small
economy for years to come and how
businesses with annual revenues of
it affects the lives of everyone who
$20 million or less. These compa-
works in an industry, supplies an
nies, in particular, need a regulatory
industry or depends on an industry
environment in which the product
for goods and services. The contribu-
approval process is timely, predict-
tion the U.S. health care technology
able, consistent and not unduly
industry makes to America's balance
burdensome. They need to know in
sheet does not have to wane. How-
advance what types of studies must
ever, cooperation between govern-
be done, what types of applications
ment and industry and within
need to be filed and how long the
government itself is vital. Wise
iii
HIMA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Like virtually every other industry
to the field who have less than $20
Of the six industry sectors
in America, the health care technol-
million in annual revenues. They
identified by the U.S. Department of
ogy industry has encountered the
thrive by being highly entrepreneur-
Commerce as the fastest growing in
trend toward global markets and
ial, excelling at taking an innovation
1991, three are health care technol-
increased international competition.
from the lab and speeding it to
ogy industry sectors — surgical and
Unlike virtually every other industry
market. Together, these companies,
medical instruments (forecast to grow
in America, however, the health care
old and new, large and small, create a
9 percent), surgical appliances and
technology industry has maintained
stream of ever-improving products
supplies (8 percent) and diagnostic
and increased its positive trade
that lengthen the lives of Americans
substances (7 percent).
balance throughout the last decade,
and people around the world - and
Consumption of health care
despite the nation's recent overall
make those lives more productive and
technology products within the
trade deficits. The keys to the
pleasant.
United States is growing, too,
industry's high degree of interna-
The future of this industry is far
totalling $26.3 billion in 1989, up 7
tional competitiveness are its abilities
from certain, however. This report
percent from the 1988 figure. Recent
to innovate, to commercialize its
provides a snapshot of where the
estimates indicate that consumption
innovations rapidly and to penetrate
health care technology industry
reached $28.0 billion in 1990. In all,
foreign markets.
stands today and how various factors
both production and consumption
The manufacturers of medical
could shape the industry tomorrow.
have grown nearly 200 percent
devices and diagnostic products who
during the 1980-1990 period.
comprise the health care technology
PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION
This growth has contributed to
industry are a diverse group. Some
AND EMPLOYMENT
strong industry employment figures.
date back to the pioneering days of
Since 1980, employment in the
modern medicine in the 19th century.
In 1989, the U.S. health care
medical products industry has grown
Over the decades, some have evolved
technology industry produced a total
by more than 38 percent. In the past
into multinational corporations with a
of $28.7 billion in equipment and
two years alone, the health care
variety of product lines and annual
products, up 10 percent over the year
technology industry has increased the
sales in the billions of dollars. Many
before. For 1990, the figure is
number of jobs it provides by an
other firms, however, are newcomers
estimated to have climbed another 9
annual rate of 4 percent. During
percent to $31.2 billion (Figure 1).
1990, some 248,300 were employed
in the industry.
Figure 1
U.S. HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY PRODUCTION
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
1990
The health care technology
Medical devices
$27.8 billion
industry is one of America's foremost
Surgical and medical instruments
$ 9.5 billion
exporters. It is, in fact, one of the
few U.S. industries that did not run a
Surgical appliances and supplies
10.1 billion
trade deficit during the 1980s, even
Dental equipment and supplies
1.3 billion
when the U.S. dollar was very strong.
X-ray apparatus and tubes
1.9 billion
Today, the industry continues to
generate a trade surplus averaging $1
Electromedical equipment
5.0 billion
billion or more. Not only does this
Diagnostic products
3.4 billion
strong international performance help
the industry's bottom line, it also
1990 TOTAL U.S. PRODUCTION
$31.2 billion
helps the nation's balance of trade.
In 1989, the industry racked up a $2.3
1
HIMA
billion surplus. In 1990, the
the American market: the most
health care technology products were
industry's trade surplus reached an
innovative and effective manufactur-
Japanese (accounting for about 10
estimated $3.2 billion as exports
ers, regardless of home country, can
percent) and German (about 9
grew by more than 18 percent to $6.5
readily capture a chunk of what is the
percent).
billion.
world's largest market for health care
Meanwhile, 48 percent of all U.S.
This success has been achieved
technology products - - the United
patents granted in 1990 went to
despite tough global competition.
States.
foreign residents. In other words,
Germany has a particularly strong
U.S. health care technology compa-
and broad-based health care technol-
INNOVATION
nies dominate patent activity in their
ogy industry. Japan is also extremely
field far more than do U.S. compa-
competitive in several product areas
The U.S. health care technology
nies as a whole.
such as electromedical imaging
industry's international success stems
equipment. These two countries alone
in no small part from its commitment
PROSPECTS
account for nearly half of U.S.
to innovation. In both 1988 and
medical products imports. In 1990,
1989, the industry invested 6.2
Conservative Health Industry
Germany bought an estimated $691
percent of sales in research and
Manufacturers Association (HIMA)
million worth of U.S. medical
development. The average for U.S.
forecasts predict that U.S. health care
products. Nevertheless, although the
industry as a whole was 3.4 percent.
technology production will grow 7.4
U.S. achieved a worldwide trade
The medical products industry even
percent each year between 1990 and
surplus in medical products that year,
out-invested other industries recog-
1995 (see Figure 2). American
it ran a $127 million medical prod-
nized for innovation - aerospace
consumption is forecast to grow 5.1
ucts deficit with Germany. In
(4.1 percent of sales invested in
percent annually during that period,
medical products trade with Japan,
R&D), chemicals (3.8 percent), and
while U.S. exports and the U.S. trade
the U.S. trade surplus with that
electrical and electronics (5.4
surplus are expected to grow at
country grew to $115 million in
percent).
annual rates of 15.5 percent and 24.3
1990, after going into surplus in 1989
This major investment in innova-
percent, respectively.
for the first time in many years. In
tion brought nearly 5,000 new health
As conservative as these forecasts
all, two-thirds of the medical devices
care technology products to market in
are, however, it remains possible that
exported from the United States in
fiscal 1990. Most of these products
various policy-related decisions could
1990 were consumed by the Euro-
were reviewed under the Food and
be made in the United States and
pean Community, Japan and Canada.
Drug Administration's (FDA's)
abroad that could significantly curtail
The Pacific Rim nations and Mexico
premarket notification, or 510(k),
the industry's annual growth.
are also important rapidly growing
process. The total review time for
markets for U.S. exports. In addition
the 4,748 products approved this way
Negative Scenario
to exporting to these countries, many
averaged 98 days. (By comparison,
Domestically, for instance, the
U.S. medical products companies
the 47 products approved through the
FDA upon which the industry
have made overseas investments in
FDA's premarket approval [PMA]
must depend so heavily for efficient
local production to better serve these
procedure averaged 415 days.)
regulation could be hampered by
markets.
Another measure of the industry's
continued chronic under-funding and
Industry import/export figures
innovativeness and international
by recent legislation, such as the Safe
bear witness to the increasing
competitiveness is patent activity.
Medical Devices Act of 1990, which
internationalization of the health care
During the period 1980-1990, the
adds a number of new requirements
technology market. Both the U.S.
number of medical device patents
to the FDA's review process. It will
export intensity level and the import
granted annually by the U.S. Patent
take months and, in some instances,
penetration ratio have risen gradually
and Trademark Office more than
years before many of the new
since 1975. In other words, America
doubled, reaching 4,180 in 1990.
requirements are implemented by the
is both exporting more and importing
Only 32 percent of the U.S. medical
government and understood by an
more of these products. Today, being
device patents granted in 1990 were
industry that creates new products
an American manufacturer carries no
foreign owned. The most frequent
very rapidly. Even before the
guarantee of holding a given share of
foreign owners of U.S. patents for
enactment of the new legislation, the
2
HIMA
Figure 2
Medicare cost-control measures.
U.S. HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY FACT SHEET
1990-1995
Medicare coverage policies involve a
large portion of the U.S. health care
1990 Subtotals
1990
1995 Projected
delivery system and directly affect
Production
$31.2 billion
$43.9 billion
the environment for technological
- Medical devices
$27.8 billion
- Diagnostic products
3.4 billion
innovation. Over the past decade,
Market size (consumption)
$28.0 billion
some Medicare coverage and
$35.5 billion
- Medical devices
$25.3 billion
payment regulations have been
- Diagnostic products
2.8 billion
implemented that constrained the
U.S. exports
6.5 billion
$13.1 billion
introduction and diffusion of new
U.S. imports
3.3 billion
4.7 billion
U.S. trade surplus
3.2 billion
8.4 billion
technologies. Furthermore, a recent
- with the EC
$1,017 million
study found that coverage decisions
- with Japan
115 million
- with Canada
841 million
for new technologies took an average
- with Germany
-127 million
of nearly 2.4 years to complete, thus
- with Mexico
43 million
174 million
delaying the availability of critical
- with the U.K.
technologies.
U.S. Industry employment
248,300
Another initiative that could harm
Industry R&D expenditures
6.2%
as a percentage of sales
this industry is the regulations being
Annual U.S. Industry growth (1990 &
drafted to implement the Clinical
projected annual growth through 1995)
Laboratory Improvement Amend-
- Market size
up 6.4%
up 5.1%
- Production
up 8.8%
up 7.4%
ments of 1988. These regulations
- Exports
up 18.4%
up 15.5%
could change laboratory testing in
- Imports
up 5.3%
up 6.9%
ways that add up to multimillion-
- Trade surplus
up 35.8%
up 24.3%
- Employment
up 2.8%
dollar losses to the diagnostics sector
Device approvals and favorable decisions
of the health care technology
PMAs: 47
down 16%
industry. Also, a number of environ-
PMA supplements: 700
up 35%
510(k)s: 4,748
down 2%
mental and worker safety regulations
PMA review time (days)
up 19%
are under consideration at both the
510(k) review time (days)
up 20%
state and federal level that could
significantly affect certain segments
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data; FDA data for fiscal year 1990; Business
Week, *R&D Scoreboard 1990"; and HIMA projections based on historical trends.
of the health care technology
industry. The revised Clean Air Act,
for example, will pose a number of
number of PMAs approved and
user fees, seen by some as a solution
challenges to the industry and is
510(k)s cleared by the FDA had
to the FDA's funding problems, must
expected to result in increased costs.
already fallen in FY 1990, while
be paid with each new product
Internationally, how much access
average review and approval time
approval application, the small,
U.S. manufacturers have to key
increased.
entrepreneurial companies in the
markets such as Japan and the 12-
If regulatory delays, uncertainty
industry will be crippled. In addition,
nation European Community (EC)
and a number of burdensome
user fees could create a host of
and how foreign governments decide
requirements sparked by the new
conflict-of-interest questions because
to treat their own health care technol-
legislation further inhibit the U.S.
companies would, in effect, be
ogy industries at home will also have
medical products industry from
paying money to the FDA to approve
a significant impact. The EC's plans
bringing its innovations to market, it
their new products.
to completely overhaul and harmo-
will not be able to continue to invest
What's more, changes in Medicare
nize its approval process by 1992 will
so vigorously in R&D. Nor will the
coverage and payment regulations
create uncertainty and possible chaos
industry be able to improve already
could reduce the amount of money
for manufacturers trying to access the
developed technologies by incorpo-
available to be plowed back into the
European market. In Japan, the
rating information learned from their
development of new technologies and
government is in the process of
manufacture and use. Furthermore, if
products, as could certain proposed
revising its health care requirements
3
HIMA
and reimbursement system in an
Administration could help ensure that
medical products companies, both
effort to control the cost of serving its
FDA-approved products are covered
large and small, to R&D and to
rapidly aging population.
for Medicare reimbursement pur-
exporting sets the industry apart from
Can U.S. companies adapt as
poses. A more efficient system of
many others. Its future rests on the
quickly and freely as local companies
preparing export certificates also
ability of these companies to continue
to the major changes taking place in
could help the industry strengthen its
their commitment to developing and
the foreign regulatory environment?
performance in overseas markets by
marketing innovative products at
A recent U.S. Department of
reducing the delays that U.S. suppli-
home and abroad. Furthermore, the
Commerce study warns that trends
ers face in marketing their products
industry must strive to meet this
emerging overseas in product
in many countries.
challenge in the face of increasingly
introduction and government support
Internationally, the possible
strong foreign competition and
to industry are making foreign
harmonization of regulatory require-
increasingly tight government
companies more vital global competi-
ments that the unification of the
reimbursement and regulatory
tors than ever before. Given the
European Community could bring to
controls.
increasingly favorable climate some
that 12-nation market, the restructur-
HIMA recognizes that the health
foreign health care technology
ing of Japan's distribution system and
care technology industry itself is
companies are enjoying at home,
improvements in international trade
responsible for continuing to meet its
U.S. companies may begin to lag -
rules in the General Agreement on
global competitors with the same
especially if they do not have the
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) could all
vision, energy and innovativeness as
same open access to their competi-
bolster the U.S. health care technol-
it has in the past. The industry is also
tors' home markets as their competi-
ogy industry's export performance.
responsible for alerting U.S.
tors have to the vast U.S. market.
Finally, efforts to enhance
policymakers to the priorities and
All told, the U.S. industry's future
America's overall international
pitfalls in the regulatory and legisla-
success is much more fragile than its
competitiveness, such as the reduc-
tive spheres that could boost or
strong historical performance
tion of the U.S. budget deficit, would
impair the industry's ability to buoy
suggests.
increase growth prospects for U.S.
the nation's trade balance and - just
industries in general, including the
as important - to safeguard the
Positive Scenario
health care technology industry.
health and well-being of every
There are, of course, circum-
American.
stances that could fuel the U.S. health
CONCLUSION
American legislators and regula-
care technology industry's growth
tors will decide how well funded and
beyond what HIMA's conservative
In recent years, the U.S. health
efficient the FDA is in coming years,
forecasts predict. Domestically,
care technology industry has per-
how well attuned to new technologies
Congress could end the FDA's
formed extremely well in both
Medicare is, how reasonable labora-
chronic under-funding, giving it the
domestic and international markets.
tory testing regulations are and how
resources to attract well-qualified
Not only has the industry helped
aggressive U.S. negotiations with
scientists to develop guidance on
shore up America's balance of trade
trading partners are.
regulatory requirements and to serve
by running a large surplus in an era
Greater coordination within U.S.
as medical reviewers. Furthermore,
of widespread deficits, it has also
government circles will be needed to
the FDA could implement the new
created a wealth of innovative life-
shape and balance often competing
Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 in
saving and life-enhancing products
national priorities - the need for
a manner that minimizes the potential
and provided jobs to nearly a quarter
U.S. competitiveness versus the need
negative impact and uncertainty
of a million workers. In coming
for adequate regulatory controls, for
caused by any major new legislation
years, the industry is expected to
instance. The dismal trade perfor-
of this type. But some degree of
remain a major contributor to U.S.
mance of other U.S. industries
uncertainty and disruption cannot be
manufacturing growth and U.S. trade
throughout the 1980s should serve as
avoided.
performance, with a projected trade
a reminder that the competitiveness
Better coordination between the
surplus of $8.4 billion in 1995.
of this industry is as fragile as some
FDA and the Health Care Financing
The commitment of America's
of the patients it serves. Moreover,
4
HIMA
it underscores the importance of
policy coordination both within the
government and between the govern-
ment and the private sector.
By working together, the U.S.
government and the U.S. health care
technology industry can continue to
meet these challenges and to fulfill
these important national priorities.
5
HIMA
INTRODUCTION
The trend toward global markets
3).¹ The industry provided jobs to
the United States grew from approxi-
and increased international competi-
nearly 250,000 and put nearly 5,000
mately 200 to 6,000.
tion is a phenomenon that is affecting
new medical devices on the market to
Just as the development of health
virtually every U.S. industry. The
help Americans live longer and
care technology encouraged the
health care technology industry is no
healthier lives.
establishment of medical services and
exception. But the industry's
facilities that could use the new
consistently strong growth and
A HISTORY OF GROWTH
technologies to save lives, the
positive trade balance over the last
AND INNOVATION
proliferation of those services and
several decades, including the recent
facilities also encouraged the
period of high U.S. trade deficits,
The beginnings of the modern
expansion of the fledgling health care
have made it an exceptionally bright
health care technology industry can
technology industry. Other develop-
spot on America's economic balance
be traced back to the 1880s, when the
ments in that era reinforced this
sheet. Thanks to the U.S. health care
use of anesthetics and antisepsis for
trend. The shift in physician training
technology industry's ability to
surgical purposes was pioneered.
in the early 1900s to a stronger
innovate and to commercialize its
These developments vastly changed
emphasis on the biological and
innovations rapidly, its competitive-
the role hospitals played from that of
chemical sciences, for instance,
ness in world markets has been
caretaking to that of intervening in
prepared doctors to better understand,
ensured, despite increased competi-
patients' health. The development of
develop and use technological
tion from overseas suppliers in recent
x-ray technology at the turn of the
advances. The creation of Blue
years.
century added even greater impetus
Cross insurance in 1927 helped make
In 1990, U.S. production of
for establishing well-capitalized
those advances available to more
medical devices and diagnostic
hospitals that could acquire such
Americans.
products reached $31.2 billion, while
equipment and provide the lab-testing
The inclusion of medical insur-
the U.S. trade surplus in medical
and other facilities needed for
ance as a standard part of employee
products rose to an estimated $3.2
surgical procedures. Between 1880
benefits during the World War II era
billion, its highest level ever (Figure
and 1920, the number of hospitals in
and the creation of Medicare/
Medicaid in 1965 went even further
Figure 3
in making health care technology
U.S. HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY TRADE SURPLUS
widely available in this country and
1985-1990
provided hospitals with a stable
4
financial base on which to operate.
In addition, the National Institutes of
Health's large-scale funding of
3
biomedical research after World War
II made the development of more
$ billions
effective surgical techniques and
2
technological advances possible.
Together, these trends and develop-
ments have contributed greatly to the
1
dramatic advances in health care that
Americans - and people all around
0
the world - have enjoyed in recent
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990*
decades.
*
Estimate.
A number of today's major health
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
care technology companies date back
to those pioneering days of medicine
6
HIMA
IMPORTANT TERMS
In this report, the health care
health information system segment
mentioned above — products that
technology industry is also referred
figures are included in the medical
are used outside the patient's
to as the medical products industry
device totals and not shown as a
body. This category is the larger
and the medical devices and
separate industry segment.
of the two, and most manufactur-
diagnostic products industry. The
This has been done because the
ers of these products are repre-
industry is described as having two
U.S. Department of Commerce
sented by HIMA.
major segments:
recently began including partial data
Some in vitro diagnostic
Medical devices — By far the
on health information systems in its
products such as HIV assays or
largest industry segment,
medical device Standard Industrial
blood bank reagents are regulated
medical devices range from
Classification (SIC) grouping for
by the FDA as in vitro biologicals.
tongue depressors to surgical
electromedical equipment. This is a
As such, they are subject to
instruments, from implantable
step forward — in the past, neither
regulatory oversight that differs
devices to magnetic resonance
government nor private data sources
slightly from the above mentioned
imaging (MRI) systems.
tended to classify computer hardware
groups. Makers of such products
Diagnostic products A rapidly
and software by their end use. The
are also represented by HIMA.
growing industry segment,
contribution health information
In vivo reagents, on the other
diagnostics are products that
systems manufacturers made to the
hand, are injected into or ingested
allow patients to be tested for a
health care technology industry's
by the patient. Examples include
variety of conditions. Examples
production, consumption and trade
the various radiological substances
include immunoassay kits,
totals, therefore, was invisible in
that are administered to a patient
allergy measuring products and
industry statistics. Although that
to make x-ray or CAT scan images
drug-abuse tests. As is
contribution is now being at least
more revealing. These products
explained below, there is an
partially recorded, adequate statistics
are used inside the patient's body.
important distinction to be made
are not yet available for this report to
The makers of these products are
between the two basic types of
discuss the health information system
represented by pharmaceutical
diagnostic products: in vitro and
segment with the same comprehen-
industry groups, not by HIMA.
biological products, and in vivo
siveness as the medical devices and
When it comes to compiling
diagnostic reagents.
diagnostics product industry
statistics on diagnostic products,
segments.
however, the distinction between
A Third Segment
in vitro and in vivo products is
The Health Industry Manufac-
Diagnostic Products
rarely made — both are grouped
turers Association (HIMA) also
As mentioned above, the diagnos-
together. Fortunately, for the
recognizes a third important
tic products segment is divided into
purposes of this report, inclusion of
industry segment, health informa-
two basic categories: (1) in vitro and
in vivo reagent products in the
tion systems — the computer
biological diagnostic products and (2)
figures does not significantly distort
hardware and software that do a
in vivo reagents. In vitro products use
health care technology industry
number of health care-related
chemical or biological reagents to test
totals.
tasks such as processing patient
specimens (blood, urine, etc.) drawn
For more detailed information
records, financial information, or
from a patient. Examples include the
on the data in this report, see
lab and blood bank data. For the
immunoassay kits, allergy measuring
Appendix A.
purposes of this report, however,
products and drug-abuse tests
7
HIMA
in the 1880s. Many of these compa-
delivers an electric shock to the heart
benefits to a number of industries,
nies began by producing what are
to restore normal heartbeats - has
including telecommunications and
today simple products, such as
greatly reduced the risk of death due
computers.
bandages, alkaloids and relatively
to a fibrillating (or racing) heart.
By broadening U.S. research and
crude medical instruments. Over the
Artificial limbs and joints such as hip
manufacturing in emerging technol-
decades, they evolved into multi-
implants have improved the lives and
ogy areas, medical products clearly
national corporations with diverse
productivity of countless people by
contribute to the stream of develop-
product lines and annual sales in the
increasing mobility and, often, by
ments that fuel other American high-
billions of dollars.
relieving pain. New instruments and
tech industries. Many of these
The commitment to innovation
techniques are also greatly reducing
industries, along with the health care
that is the hallmark of today's health
the risks and recovery times for a
technology industry, will play key
care technology industry was present
number of surgical procedures. For
roles in America's future prosperity.
from the start. A turn-of-the-century
example, the laparoscopic technique,
ice-box manufacturer that began by
in which surgeons make small
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
exploring refrigeration technology,
incisions through which they insert
for instance, developed a niche in the
cameras and surgical tools, is
The health care technology
health care field and, though still a
currently being expanded to a number
industry is expected to experience
relatively small company, is today
of applications - from the removal
strong growth as the U.S. economy
one of the world's premier suppliers
of gallbladders to intestinal and chest
enters the 1990s. Both increased
of blood bank refrigeration equip-
surgery. Other devices such as
consumption of medical products and
ment and hospital coolers.
surgical lasers are being used to
stronger foreign demand are expected
In contrast, however, many other
remove infected body tissue, includ-
to contribute to this growth.
health care technology companies are
ing cancerous growths. Such
The consumption of health care
newcomers to the field. In fact, one
procedures, and the medical devices
technology products in the United
distinguishing characteristic of the
used to carry them out, offer not only
States is expected to grow for several
industry is the large role that newer,
health advantages but also significant
reasons. One factor is the aging of
smaller companies - those with less
financial benefits.
the U.S. population. The proportion
than $20 million in annual revenues
It should also be noted that,
of the population 65 years old and
- play. Some of these companies
although these innovations improve
older, for example, is projected to
are highly entrepreneurial and excel
the quality of life in the United States
rise from 9.8 percent in 1970 to 13.0
at taking a technological innovation
and abroad, they also contribute to
percent by the year 2000.2 The
from the lab, developing it into a
U.S. economic competitiveness by
increased availability of various
marketable product and making it
incorporating and otherwise broaden-
treatments on an outpatient basis, as
available to patients.
ing America's use of advanced
well as shortened recovery periods
This corporate mix of old and
technologies and materials. The
associated with many new treatments,
new, large and small, has produced a
defibrillator was made possible only
encourages individuals to take
vast number of innovative products in
through advances in sensor technol-
advantage of these services and
recent decades that save lives and
ogy and electronic engineering.
products. In addition, the increase in
greatly improve the quality of life.
Artificial limbs and implants increas-
the incidence of infectious diseases
For example, in fewer than 20 years,
ingly rely on advanced materials to
such as AIDS will also stimulate
diagnostic imaging equipment has
improve their effectiveness. In the
demand for certain medical products.
progressed from x-ray to CAT scan
area of x-ray imaging, many believe
Stronger foreign demand will also
to MRI. One of the benefits of this
that a major part of the next leap
play a major role in this industry's
progression has been the dramatic
forward will come from high-
growth prospects. U.S. medical
increase in the survival rate of head-
definition imaging, which will store
products manufacturers maintain a
trauma victims. A decade ago, one in
and display images electronically and
worldwide reputation as suppliers of
10 survived; today, the survival rate
result in vastly sharper pictures. It is
high-quality, very competitive
approaches 9 in 10.
expected that the work done on
products. Overseas sales are ex-
Another notable innovation, the
digital imaging technology for
pected to increase not only in the
implantable defibrillator - which
medical purposes will spin off
fast-growing developed country
8
HIMA
markets of Canada, Japan and the
all segments of the industry. In
European Community (EC), but also
addition, numerous efforts underway
in less traditional developing country
to contain health care costs are
markets. The high-growth Pacific
creating another form of regulatory
Rim economies, in particular, have
complications and uncertainty for the
strong sales potential for American
industry.
medical products firms.
The U.S. health care technology
Trade in medical products is also
industry achieved its highest trade
expected to grow strongly as a result
surplus ever in 1990. Clearly, this
of companies' continued efforts to
industry represents one of the
respond to global competitive
competitive industries the United
pressures. Medical technology
States will have to rely upon as it
companies, given the heavy invest-
grows out of its trade deficits.
ment they must make in technology
However, as is discussed extensively
and R&D, must work to achieve
in a later section, the industry's
economies of scale, lower their costs
growth prospects and its future
and leverage their technology
contribution to U.S. trade perfor-
investments beyond the U.S. market.
mance could be greatly diminished
In addition to their commitment to
by changes in the regulatory and
innovation, another distinguishing
international environment.
characteristic of health care technol-
ogy companies, both large and small,
is their commitment to exporting.
Although the United States is the
largest market in the world for
medical products, many companies in
this industry operate with the stated
objective of doing at least 50 percent
of their business outside the United
States.
In a recent survey of 222 of its
smaller company members, HIMA
found that more than 77 percent were
active in exporting their products.
One of these companies recently won
the Presidential "E Award" for
excellence in exporting from the U.S.
Department of Commerce. This
company, a maker of monitors and
respiratory care products based in
California, exports well over 50
percent of its products.
A third distinguishing characteris-
tic of health care technology compa-
nies is the degree of regulation they
face. In fact, the health care technol-
ogy industry is one of the most highly
regulated manufacturing industries in
America, with regulations at the state
and federal level affecting virtually
9
HIMA
I. PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND
EMPLOYMENT
The U.S. health care technology
of nearly 9 percent, with medical
enced average annual growth of
industry comprises manufacturers of
device production experiencing
approximately 11 percent. Growth in
medical devices and diagnostic
average annual growth of 8.9 percent
these product areas has been fueled
products. In 1990, the United States
and diagnostic products 8.2 percent
primarily by health concerns over the
produced an estimated total of $31.2
(Table 1).
spread of AIDS and other infectious
billion in medical devices and
The size of the U.S. market for
diseases. Shipments of electro-
diagnostic products (Figure 4). Of
health care technology products, in
medical equipment experienced a
this total, medical device production
terms of consumption, amounted to
similarly strong annual growth rate of
amounted to $27.8 billion in 1990,
$28.0 billion in 1990, approximately
9.2 percent during this period, as
while production of diagnostic
6.3 percent higher than 1989 levels.³
purchases of MRI equipment and
products reached $3.4 billion (see
Over the three-year period 1988-
ultrasound devices have remained at
Table 1 in Appendix C).
1990, U.S. consumption of medical
high levels. Table 2 contains a
The $31.2 billion in U.S. produc-
products grew annually by an average
breakdown of medical device
tion of health care technology
of approximately 7 percent, with
production by SIC code.4
products represents a 9 percent
medical device consumption growing
Most important, as Table 1
increase over 1989 levels. This
by an average 6.6 percent and
indicates, the increase in medical
increase helped to supply the U.S.
diagnostic products averaging annual
device and diagnostics production in
market, which expanded by 6
growth of 7.0 percent.
recent years has, to a large degree,
percent, and the export market, which
The two medical device product
been driven by export growth. U.S.
grew by 18 percent in 1990. During
categories with the strongest growth
production in the past three years has
the three-year period, 1988-1990,
in production during the period 1988-
risen at an average annual rate of
medical device and diagnostics
1990 were surgical appliances and
almost 9 percent, while consumption
production in the United States
supplies, and surgical and medical
has risen less than 7 percent annually.
experienced average annual growth
instruments, both of which experi-
At the same time, U.S. exports
averaged annual growth of more than
21 percent.
Figure 4
U.S. PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL DEVICES AND DIAGNOSTIC PRODUCTS
Table 1 also provides a longer
1987-1990
term perspective on U.S. production
40
and consumption of medical devices
and diagnostic products. Since 1975,
the U.S. health care technology
30
industry has grown from a $5 billion
industry to one of over $31 billion.
$ billions
During the same period, the U.S.
20
market has grown from under $5
billion to more than $28 billion. In
the past 10 years alone, both produc-
10
tion and consumption of health care
technology products in the United
0
States have increased nearly 200
1987
1988
1989
1990*
percent (Figure 5).
* Estimate.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
10
HIMA
A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR
Figure 5
U.S. PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF HEALTH CARE
TO U.S. MANUFACTURING
TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS, 1980-1990
GROWTH
40
Production
The U.S. Department of Com-
Consumption
merce has forecast that the health
30
care technology industry will be a
major source of U.S. manufacturing
growth over the near term. In fact,
the health care technology and other
$ billions
20
high-tech industries are expected to
dominate U.S. manufacturing growth
10
over the next few years.
Table 3 lists the 10 industries -
identified by the U.S. Department of
0
Commerce on a four-digit SIC code
1980
1985
1990*
basis - that are expected to experi-
* Estimate.
ence the strongest growth in 1991 (in
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
terms of industry shipments, on a
constant dollar basis). Medical
devices and diagnostic products
account for three of the six industry
Figure 6
sectors identified as the highest-
EMPLOYMENT IN THE HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY
1987-1990
growth industries.
Surgical and medical instruments,
300
and surgical appliances and supplies
rank near the top of the list of fastest
250
growing U.S. industries, with
projected growth rates of 8.6 percent
Employees in thousands
200
and 7.6 percent, respectively, for
150
1991. Shipments by firms producing
diagnostic substances are expected to
100
grow by 6.9 percent in 1991. Over-
all, the U.S. Department of Com-
50
merce estimates that shipments by
companies producing medical
0
devices will grow 7.3 percent in
1987
1988
1989
1990*
1991, in constant dollar terms
* Estimate.
(Table 4).
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data and HIMA estimates.
EMPLOYMENT IN THE
HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY
health care technology industry
markets, and as new entrants in the
INDUSTRY
employment has averaged annual
industry have commercialized new
growth of approximately 4.3 percent,
technologies.
The growth in U.S. production and
reaching 248,300 in 1990 (Figure 6
The major portion of employment
consumption of health care technol-
and Table 5). This employment
in the health care technology industry
ogy products over the past decade has
growth has occurred as existing
can be attributed to medical device
contributed to strong employment
companies have expanded their
production. Employment in the
growth in the industry - more than
activities to respond to increased
medical device area totalled 231, 100
38 percent. Over the past three years,
demand in both the U.S. and overseas
in 1990, up approximately 3 percent
11
HIMA
from 1989 levels. Over the period
1980-1990, employment in the
medical device area has grown by
more than 37 percent. The major
portion of medical device employ-
ment growth over this 10-year period
can be attributed to surgical and
medical instruments, and surgical
appliances and supplies.
Employment in the diagnostic
products sector, which reached
17,200 in 1990, has shown even more
impressive growth over the past 10
years. During the period 1980-1990,
employment in the diagnostic
products area grew by more than 68
percent. Over the past three years,
employment in this sector has
experienced average annual growth
of 3.8 percent (Table 5).
12
HIMA
II. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
The strong growth in the U.S.
remained flat in 1988 and 1989 and
1980s, with the overall effect that
trade surplus in medical products in
are estimated to have increased only
imports climbed from $650 million in
recent years makes the health care
marginally in 1990 (Figure 9).
1980 to $3.3 billion in 1990. This
technology industry one of the few
Medical products imports,
strong growth can be attributed to a
U.S. industries to consistently
however, did rise strongly in the early
number of factors. The United States
generate a trade surplus averaging $1
billion or more.⁵ The trade surplus
Figure 7
for the medical products industry
U.S. EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
1984-1990
over the past 10 years has ranged
from a high of $2.3 billion in 1989 to
7
a low of $890 million in 1986 (Figure
Exports
6
7). Preliminary information from the
Imports
U.S. Department of Commerce
Surplus
5
indicates that the export-driven
growth in the medical products trade
surplus continued in 1990, with the
$ billions
4
surplus reaching an estimated $3.2
3
billion (Table 6).
The major factor contributing to
2
the consistent surplus is the strength
of U.S. medical products exports
1
(Figure 8). Annual medical products
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990*
exports increased from $1.9 billion in
* Estimate.
1980 to $6.5 billion in 1990, an
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
increase of more than 242 percent
(Table 6). In the past three years,
exports of health care technology
products have experienced an
Figure 8
average annual growth of more than
U.S. MEDICAL PRODUCTS EXPORTS
21 percent. The significant growth in
1987-1990
exports, cushioned by recent slower
7
growth in imports, has reversed the
6
five-year deterioration of the trade
surplus that occurred during the mid-
5
1980s.
The recent slowdown in medical
4
products imports is due, in part, to the
$ billions
3
weakening of the U.S. dollar in
relation to the currencies of the
2
countries that host major suppliers of
medical products (i.e., Germany and
1
Japan). It also reflects the overall
0
competitiveness of the U.S. industry
1987
1988
1989
1990*
across the range of medical devices
* Estimate.
and diagnostic products. U.S.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
imports of medical products
13
HIMA
Figure 9
growth in U.S. exports to that market
U.S. MEDICAL PRODUCTS IMPORTS
and modest market liberalization by
1987-1990
the Japanese government, some of
4
which occurred at the behest of the
U.S. government. In 1988, these
efforts, in combination with increased
3
competitiveness as result of the lower
value of the dollar, began to pay off
$ billions
in terms of the industry's trade
2
performance. In 1990, the U.S. trade
surplus with Japan in medical
1
products reached an estimated $115
million.
U.S. trade with its North Ameri-
0
can neighbors also increased signifi-
1987
1988
1989
1990*
cantly in recent years. U.S. medical
* Estimate.
device and diagnostics exports to
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
Canada are estimated to have grown
over 60 percent in 1990, to $934
million, contributing to a medical
is the largest market for medical
significant medical products deficit
products trade surplus with that
products, and U.S. demand has
is Germany. As can be seen from
country of $841 million (Table 8).
grown substantially. Compared to
Table 7, that deficit expanded during
With regard to Mexico, both exports
other major countries, the U.S.
the period 1980-1990, despite the fact
and imports have nearly doubled in
market provides for relatively rapid
that U.S. exports to Germany also
the last three years, reaching $297
acceptance of new medical technol-
increased significantly during the
million and $254 million, respec-
ogy. The relative strength of the U.S.
period. After peaking at $265 million
tively, in 1990. Medical products
economy and limited growth oppor-
in 1987, the U.S. trade deficit for
trade with Mexico is now nearly as
tunities in high-debt developing
medical products with Germany has
large as U.S. medical products trade
countries also contributed to strong
decreased to $127 million in 1990
with France and the United Kingdom.
competition in the U.S. market. This
(Table 8). Similarly, the bilateral
Trade with Mexico is expected to
rise in imports — - as well as exports
trade balance with the European
grow in future years with the negotia-
- is also further evidence of the
Community (EC), which had been a
tion of a Free Trade Agreement,
increasing globalization of the health
surplus of only $225 million in 1987,
which will further enhance economic
care technology industry.
has grown to a surplus of $1.017
ties between the United States and
billion in 1990.
Mexico.
BILATERAL TRADE FLOWS
At the beginning of the decade,
the United States had a bilateral trade
Major Purchasers of U.S.
During much of the 1980s, the
surplus in medical products of $92
Exports
U.S. health care technology industry
million with Japan, the second largest
Table 9 provides a comparison of
experienced chronic trade deficits
bilateral trade surplus that year in fact
the major purchasing countries of
with Germany and Japan. However,
(Table 7). However, by the mid-
U.S. medical products in 1980 and
the big rise in the U.S. medical
1980s the United States had devel-
1990. The percentages attributable to
products trade surplus in the last
oped a medical products trade deficit
purchasing countries have remained
three years has reversed the
with Japan that peaked at $95 million
surprisingly stable during the decade.
industry's trade deficit with Japan,
in 1987. The U.S. industry's inability
The 10 largest purchasers of U.S.
and substantially reduced the trade
to keep up with exports from Japan
health care technology products in
deficit with Germany.
during the period 1980-1987 oc-
1980 continued to be the 10 largest
The only nation with which the
curred despite the industry's in-
purchasers in 1990, although for
United States currently runs a
creased sales efforts in Japan, strong
some the rankings have changed.
14
HIMA
Canada (15 percent), Japan (14
(Figure 11 and Table 10). Imports
million, respectively, which together
percent) and Germany (11 percent)
from Japan as a percent of total U.S.
accounted for nearly half of total U.S.
remain the three largest single-
imports increased from 18 percent to
imports of medical products.
country markets for U.S. medical
24 percent during the period 1980-
Imports from Mexico rose so
products exports and purchased the
1990. In contrast, the German share
dramatically during the period 1980-
lion's share of U.S. exports in 1990.
of U.S. medical products imports fell
1990 that Mexico is now the third
As illustrated in Figure 10, the EC,
from 35 percent to 25 percent. In
largest supplier to the U.S. market.
Japan and Canada account for two-
1990, imports from Germany and
Imports from Mexico rose from $11
thirds of total U.S. medical products
Japan totalled $818 million and $794
million in 1980 to $254 million 1990.
exports. The EC itself took 39
percent of the United States' medical
Figure 10
products exports in 1990. It should
MAJOR PURCHASERS OF U.S. MEDICAL PRODUCTS EXPORTS
1980 AND 1990
also be noted that the EC and Japan
accounted for an even greater
1980
1990
percentage of U.S. exports in 1990
Total exports: $1.9 billion
Total exports: $6.5 billion
than they did in 1980, reflecting the
importance of these markets to U.S.
Canada
Canada
medical products manufacturers.
(13.8%)
(14.5%)
U.S. exports to Asian markets
other than Japan (e.g., South Korea
EC
EC
(37.6%)
(39.0%)
and Taiwan) have grown strongly in
Other
Other
(27.7%)
(23.1%)
recent years as a result of increased
demand for medical equipment in
these expanding economies. These
Japan
Japan
(12.5%)
Other Asia
(14.1%)
markets now account for 9.3 percent
and Australia
Other Asia
of U.S. medical products exports.
(8.4%)
and Australia
Mexico's share of U.S. medical
Note: 1980 figures exclude diagnostic products.
(9.3%)
products exports increased from 3.2
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
percent in 1980 to 4.6 percent in
1990. It is likely that increased
exports to Mexico can, in part, be
attributed to import liberalization in
Figure 11
that country and some alleviation of
MAJOR SUPPLIERS OF U.S. MEDICAL PRODUCTS IMPORTS
the country's debt situation. How-
1980 AND 1990
ever, these numbers, rather than
1980
1990
reflecting only an increase in the
Total imports: $0.7 billion
Total imports: $3.3 billion
Mexican market for medical prod-
Canada
Canada
ucts, may also reflect the fact that
(5.0%)
(2.8%)
U.S. companies are increasingly
Other
locating there for production and
Other
(16.0%)
(21.3%)
assembly purposes. This results in
EC
(45.9%)
increased exports to Mexico of
EC
partially assembled products, which
(58.3%)
Japan
(18.3%)
are then finished and re-exported to
Japan
the U.S. market.
(24.2%)
Other Asia
and Australia
Major Suppliers of U.S. Imports
Other Asia
(2.4%)
and Australia
In contrast to export patterns, the
Note: 1980 figures exclude diagnostic products.
(5.8%)
data reveal that import patterns have
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
changed substantially since 1980
15
HIMA
Again, however, it is not clear to
Surgical appliances and supplies
accounted for by electromedical
what extent these figures reflect
also contributed strongly to recent
equipment stood at approximately 28
actual sales to end users or border
growth in the medical products trade
percent in 1990, down from approxi-
transactions between producers and
surplus, as exports have grown by
mately 35 percent in 1987 and 1988
assemblers.
more than 25 percent during the
(Table 12).
period 1988-1990, and imports have
MRI equipment, along with x-ray
COMPOSITION OF MEDICAL
remained stagnant (Table 11). This
equipment, makes up the diagnostic
PRODUCTS TRADE FLOWS
category includes implantable
imaging product area. As Table 11
medical devices, a product area in
shows, the U.S. trade deficit in x-ray
Table 11 provides a breakdown of
which U.S. suppliers are particularly
and irradiation equipment decreased
health care technology products trade
competitive and have a large world
to $312 million in 1990, as U.S.
flows by major product groups.
market share. For example, U.S.
exports of x-ray equipment rose and
Surgical and medical instruments
suppliers hold over 90 percent of the
imports remained static.
have been the major contributor to
Japanese market in heart valves and
The competition has become
the surge in the U.S. medical prod-
artificial joints. Intra-ocular lenses is
particularly fierce in the x-ray
ucts trade surplus in recent years.
another implantable product area in
technology area as suppliers in Japan,
Exports of these products have grown
which the U.S. suppliers are strong.
Germany, the Netherlands and the
by an average annual rate of more
However, although U.S. suppliers are
United Kingdom have grown from
than 35 percent in the past three
competitive in the implantable
being predominantly "national
years, reaching an estimated $1.9
products area, they are by no means
suppliers" to global players. In
billion in 1990. At the same time,
dominant and face tough competition
addition, with the U.S. market for
U.S. imports of surgical and medical
from European suppliers, particularly
x-ray equipment being primarily a
instruments have remained relatively
from German suppliers. With the
replacement market with relatively
flat. As can be seen in Table 12, with
growth in exports of these products,
slow growth prospects, U.S. suppliers
the surge in exports of these instru-
surgical appliances and supplies now
must increasingly fight for market
ments, this category now accounts for
account for 17 percent of total health
share elsewhere, such as in Japan and
nearly 29 percent of total U.S.
care technology products exports,
the EC.
exports of health care technology
compared with 11 percent of exports
Diagnostic products in recent
products.
in 1980.
years have become a key product
The major factor contributing to
Electromedical equipment has
group contributing to the U.S. trade
the growth in exports of surgical and
continued to be a strong contributor
surplus in medical products. In 1990,
medical instruments is probably the
to the U.S. medical device trade
the trade surplus in diagnostic
spread of AIDS and other infectious
surplus in recent years, despite the
products reached $649 million.
diseases. Exports of medical
fact that exports of these products
Relative to their foreign competitors,
equipment used for infectious control
have not grown as rapidly as other
U.S. diagnostics manufacturers are
purposes (e.g., syringes, needles and
medical product categories (Table
very competitive in terms of market
various transfusion equipment) have
11). The U.S. trade surplus in
sales. While a number of foreign
grown significantly in recent years.
electromedical equipment reached an
competitors have developed strong
In addition, U.S. suppliers are
estimated $811 million in 1990. Key
positions in certain product niches,
particularly competitive (i.e., have a
products in this category — in which
U.S. diagnostics suppliers have
large percentage of world market
U.S. suppliers have strong market
captured the largest percentage of
share) in the more technologically
share - are pacemakers and mag-
world sales, followed closely by
advanced medical instruments such
netic resonance imaging (MRI)
European manufacturers and more
as microsurgical equipment. Al-
equipment. Pacemakers represent
distantly by Japanese suppliers. With
though U.S. suppliers are also strong
another example of implantable
the populations aging in the key
in the hand-held instrument area, they
devices where the major foreign
markets of the EC and Japan, as well
face tough competition from suppli-
competition for U.S. suppliers comes
as in the United States, it is likely that
ers in Europe and Japan in this
from Germany. The percentage of
U.S. production and exports of
product area.
total medical products exports
diagnostic products will remain
strong over the medium term.
16
HIMA
With regard to the composition
intensity, with 30 percent of industry
apparatus and equipment bought
of U.S. imports (Table 13),
shipments devoted to exports in
in America and nearly 24 percent
electromedical equipment and x-ray
1990. Given their heavy dependence
of electromedical equipment
apparatus together accounted for
on export markets, as well as the
consumption.
nearly 57 percent of total U.S.
strong competition suppliers of these
On the whole, Table 14 provides
medical products imports in 1990,
products face worldwide, the
further evidence of the increasing
compared with approximately 50
electromedical and x-ray industry
importance of internationalization in
percent in 1980. The percentage of
sectors are especially sensitive to
the health care technology industry.
imports accounted for by surgical and
foreign exchange rate fluctuations
Both the export intensity level and
medical instruments, and surgical
and other external factors influencing
the import penetration ratio for the
appliances and supplies has dropped
trade.⁷
industry have exhibited a gradual rise
since 1980, to 23 percent and 12
Dental equipment and surgical and
since 1975.
percent, respectively, in 1990.
medical instruments also have
The industry's consistently
relatively strong export intensities.
favorable trade intensity, especially
EXPORT INTENSITY AND
In 1990, exports as a percentage of
relative to other U.S. industries, is
IMPORT PENETRATION RATIOS
shipments stood at approximately 27
indicative of its strength in the face of
percent for dental equipment, while
growing international competition.
As a result of the health care
the percentage for surgical and
Figures 12 and 13 compare the
technology industry's historical
medical instruments grew to over 19
import and export intensities of the
commitment to exporting, as well as
percent. Diagnostic products also
U.S. medical products industry with
the competitive dividends of invest-
have a relatively strong export.
those of several other U.S. industries.
ment in research and development,
intensity, with nearly 23 percent of
The other industries shown are a
the industry has had a strong and
product shipments going to foreign
sample of some of America's highest
relatively consistent export intensity
markets in 1990.
and lowest exporting and importing
ratio since 1975.6
On the import side, foreign
industries.
Although gradually increasing,
products accounted for less than 12
The export intensity of the health
exports as a percentage of production
percent of total U.S. consumption of
care technology industry now stands
have tended to range between 15 and
health care technology products in
at approximately 21 percent, which is
20 percent during the period 1975-
1990 (Table 14). Similar to this
significantly higher than the rela-
1990 (Table 14). In 1990, the U.S.
industry's export intensity ratio, the
tively low export intensities experi-
health care technology industry
import penetration ratio has steadily
enced by the U.S. footwear and drug
exported approximately 21 percent of
increased over the past 15 years from
industries. The U.S. pulp mill
its production, the highest level ever.
the 7 percent level experienced in
industry has a very strong export
The export intensity of the industry
1975.
intensity of more than 40 percent;
had stood at 18 percent in 1980,
Import penetration ratios vary
however, it should be noted that that
dropped slightly during the mid-
widely across the categories of health
industry's import intensity also
1980s, and has increased in recent
care technology products. Import
exceeds 40 percent. Although the
years as the export performance of a
penetration in the surgical and
export intensity for the medical
number of product categories has
medical instruments, and surgical
products industry is lower than that
improved.
appliances and supplies categories
for the computer industry, both of
Electromedical equipment is
stood at 9 percent and 4 percent,
these high-tech industries have
clearly the most export-intensive of
respectively, in 1990. However, in
experienced a similar increase in the
the medical products categories.
the x-ray apparatus and electro-
percentage of their production that is
Exports accounted for approximately
medical equipment sectors - the
shipped to foreign markets.
36 percent of U.S. shipments of
sectors that account for the major
On the import penetration side,
electromedical equipment in 1990,
portion of medical device imports -
imports as a percentage of new
down from 42 percent in 1988.
the penetration levels are much
supply for the health care technology
X-ray apparatus and irradiation
higher. In 1990, imports accounted
industry remain relatively low in
equipment also has a high export
for more than 40 percent of x-ray
relation to such import-intensive
HIMA
17
Figure 12
industries as consumer electronics
EXPORT INTENSITY RATIOS FOR SELECTED U.S. INDUSTRIES
1977-1990
and footwear. This is despite the fact
that the U.S. market, as for so many
50
industries, represents the world's
largest medical device market and is
40
the one that foreign suppliers target
with their products.
30
Percent
20
10
0
'77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90
Drugs
Computer equipment
Pulp mills
Footwear, except rubber
Medical products
Consumer electronics
Note: Export intensity ratio = export/shipments.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Industrial Outlook 1988 and 1990.
Figure 13
IMPORT PENETRATION RATIOS FOR SELECTED U.S. INDUSTRIES
1977-1990
70
60
50
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
'77
'78
'79
'80
'81
'82
'83
'84
'85
'86
'87
'88
'89
'90
Drugs
Automobiles
Pulp mills
Footwear, except rubber
Medical products
Consumer electronics
Note: Import ratio = import/(shipments + imports).
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Industrial Outlook 1988 and 1990.
18
HIMA
III. INNOVATION
The rapid introduction of new
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
American consumers demand high-
products and the refinement of
instead of exploratory surgery. And
quality, innovative health care
existing products are hallmarks of the
when surgery is still necessary,
products, and the FDA's 510(k)
U.S. health care technology industry.
technological innovations such as
process, under which the majority of
Innovation and new product introduc-
angioplasty devices (small hollow
products are reviewed before going
tion, in fact, are the key to the
catheters) and the microsurgical tools
on the market, allows for relatively
industry's international competitive-
used in laproscopy provide for less
rapid product introduction.
ness. Firms that can successfully
invasive procedures. By reducing
The industry's innovativeness can
develop new products and satisfy
risks and recovery times, these health
be measured in a number of ways.
consumer demand remain competi-
care technologies can reduce costs
One measure is the percentage of
tive in both the domestic and world
over the long term.
sales that health care technology
health care technology markets.
Where medical technology does
companies invest in research and
Innovation is also a key factor in
lead to increased costs, it is often
development. Another is the number
financial performance, a very
because these advances allow doctors
of new medical products approved by
important business consideration.
to do more for more people. When
the FDA for use in the United States.
According to one Wall Street analyst,
used effectively, medical technology
Patents are also a useful indicator of
the health care technology companies
helps keep people alive, get them
the industry's innovativeness.
whose stocks perform the best are
back to work sooner and improve
those that have made new product
their quality of life.
RESEARCH AND
development a part of their opera-
More than most industries, the
DEVELOPMENT SPENDING
tions strategy.
health care technology industry has
But technology and innovation
been receptive to technological
Better health care is based on
have little intrinsic value until they
innovation. This is related in no
constant change, constant invention.
are used to benefit people. The true
small part to the fact that the U.S.
To retain their international competi-
benefits of health care technology are
market is, in general, receptive to
tiveness in the coming decade and
found in the lives saved and the
advancing health care technology.
into the 21st century, U.S. health care
improved quality of lives lived by
people around the world; the eco-
Figure 14
nomic considerations of competitive-
R&D AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALES IN 1989
ness and stock performance pale in
comparison.
7
All too often, technological
6
innovation is blamed for increased
health care costs. However, this
5
assumption does not accurately
4
reflect the relationship between
health care technology and costs.
Percent
3
Newer technologies can actually
2
reduce the costs associated with
health care by allowing for care in
1
lower-cost settings and by replacing
0
more invasive procedures. Thanks to
All
Medical
Aerospace
Chemicals
Electrical
technological innovations, doctors
industries
products
and
electronics
can use sophisticated diagnostic
equipment such as positron emission
Source: "Innovation 1990, R&D Scoreboard," Business Week
tomography (PET scans) and
19
HIMA
technology manufacturers must be
process, a manufacturer must file a
United States work to ensure that
able to continue to market new and
premarket notification with FDA
medical products entering the market
more effective products.
before placing into commercial
are safe and effective, it is also
The U.S. health care technology
distribution a medical device that is
important that the regulatory ap-
industry has demonstrated its
substantially equivalent to devices
proval process not handicap
commitment to innovation by
already on the market. These
industry's ability to develop innova-
investing heavily in research and
procedures suffice, in the overwhelm-
tions and new products and to make
development. In both 1988 and
ing majority of cases, to ensure that
them available to patients. In the
1989, the industry spent 6.2 percent
products entering the marketplace
majority of cases, the 510(k) process
of sales on R&D, compared to an
can be used by patients with minimal
provides both the FDA and the health
average for all U.S. industry of 3.4
risk.
care technology industry with
percent in those years (Table 15).
As can be seen in Table 17, in FY
effective regulatory procedures that
Figure 14 shows the health care
1990 the FDA decided in 4,748 cases
do not constrain the application of
technology industry's R&D expendi-
- out of a total of 5,831 510(k)
relatively recent innovations and new
tures relative to other innovative U.S.
submissions received - that devices
technologies. The 510(k) process is
industries such as the electrical and
being marketed for the first time were
well-suited for an engineering-based
electronics industry, which spent 5.4
substantially equivalent to devices
industry that relies on incremental
percent of sales on R&D in 1989.
already on the market. The total
product improvements in most cases.
Table 16 shows the magnitude of
review time averaged 98 days for
U.S. health care-related R&D. The
these cases. The 4,748 cases that
MEDICAL PRODUCTS
American public and private sectors
were cleared under the 510(k)
PATENTS
spent an estimated $141.8 billion on
process in FY 1990 represent about a
research and development in all areas
2 percent drop from the number of
The rapid rate of innovation in the
in 1989. Of that total, health care
cases cleared in FY 1989 under these
health care technology industry
R&D accounted for an estimated
procedures.
makes many medical devices
$20.8 billion, or 14.7 percent.⁹
In the case of products that are
technologically obsolete within a few
During the period 1985-1989, U.S.
breakthrough devices, manufacturers
short years or months. For this
health-related R&D grew at an
are required to submit a PMA
reason, patent protection is typically
average annual rate of 11.4 percent.
application for FDA review and
less important in the medical prod-
approval. PMAs must provide
ucts area than in related fields such as
FDA MEDICAL DEVICE
assurance that the device is safe and
pharmaceuticals. However, patent
APPROVALS
effective for its intended use and that
protection in many instances can help
it will be manufactured in accordance
medical products manufacturers
In fiscal year 1990, the FDA
with good manufacturing practices
protect important rights and, by
cleared 4,795 new medical devices
(GMPs). During FY 1990, a total of
encouraging the disclosure of
for sale in the United States. The
79 original PMAs were submitted.
information concerning new tech-
overwhelming majority of these
The 47 approved represent a 16
nologies, stimulate further innova-
clearances were processed under the
percent drop from the number of
tions in a number of high-tech
FDA's premarket notification, or
PMAs approved in FY 1989 (Table
medical product areas.
510(k), process. Forty-seven of these
18). The total average review time
A recent HIMA study estimated
approvals were granted under the
on these cases was 415 days -
that approximately 4 percent of the
FDA's premarket approval (PMA)
considerably longer than for the
total number of patents approved by
procedures.
510(k) cases. However, the law
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
The FDA's 510(k) process is
stipulates that PMAs should be
in 1990 were granted to medical
uniquely suited for technology that is
approved within six months (i.e., 180
products.¹⁰ Of the approximately
improved through incremental
days). PMA supplements, which
4,180 medical products patents
refinement and allows the FDA to
represent modifications to existing
granted that year, 32 percent were
scrutinize a product to a degree
PMAs, rose from 510 to 700, or 35
foreign owned (Table 19). Figure 15
commensurate with its sophistication
percent, in FY 1990.
shows the increasing number of U.S.
and complexity. Under the 510(k)
Although it is important that the
medical patents granted on an annual
20
HIMA
Figure 15
OWNERSHIP OF U.S. MEDICAL DEVICE PATENTS
1980-1990
3000
Total foreign
Total U.S.
2500
2000
Number of patents
1500
1000
500
0
1980
1985
1990
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Patent & Trademark Office, 1991.
basis. The 4,180 total medical device
of medical device patents include the
patents granted in 1990 represent
United Kingdom, France and Canada.
more than a 100 percent increase
Although the number of medical
over the number granted in 1980.
device patents going to foreign
During this same 10-year period, the
residents has been increasing, patent
ownership share of U.S. medical
data still reflect the U.S. health care
device patents granted to foreign
technology industry's strong interna-
entities grew from 27 percent to 32
tional competitiveness. While 32
percent. Japanese entities generally
percent of the medical products
receive the largest foreign share of
patents granted in 1990 did go to
U.S. medical products patents
foreign residents, 48 percent of all
granted to foreign owners, accounting
patents for inventions granted in 1990
for approximately 10 percent of the
went to foreign residents. In other
U.S. medical products patents
words, U.S. health care technology
granted in 1990. German concerns
companies are far more dominant in
also receive a substantial number of
terms of patent activity than are U.S.
U.S. medical device patents. Other
companies as a whole.¹¹
countries with a significant number
21
HIMA
IV. PROSPECTS
The focus of the paper to this
for the year. Figure 16 provides
projections for 1990 were reduced by
point has been to review the growth
comparable projections for selected
10 percent and projections for the
and development of the health care
U.S. high-growth industries. The
period 1991-1995 were reduced by
technology industry. The data clearly
health care technology industry is
20 percent in anticipation of a
identify and establish the industry's
expected to grow significantly faster
sluggish U.S. economy over the next
positive, substantial and unique
than some of the fastest growing U.S.
several years (Figure 17 and Table
contribution to the U.S. economy and
industries and much faster than the
20). Figure 18 provides a year-by-
to the quality of American life and
U.S. economy in general.
year picture of the industry's size for
health. In coming years, the industry
Since the mid-1980s, production
the period 1985-1995 based on
has the potential to continue to be a
in the health care technology industry
historical data and current industry
major source of economic growth and
has grown an average of 9 percent
projections.
technological advances. If that
annually. Based on U.S. Department
Despite the conservative projec-
potential is to be realized, however,
of Commerce historical data and
tions, export growth is still forecast to
policymakers - both American and
1990 projections, HIMA estimates
be a major contributor to the contin-
foreign — must refrain from disrupt-
that U.S. production and consump-
ued growth in U.S. production, as it
ing the regulatory environment in
tion will maintain exceptionally
has been in the past. Both U.S.
which the industry operates.
strong growth for the next five years.
government and industry sources
HIMA also estimates that the
expect U.S. medical products exports
GROWTH PROJECTIONS
industry's trade surplus will expand
to continue to grow at a double-digit
39 percent in 1990 and will record
pace over the next five years. At the
U.S. Department of Commerce
average annual growth of 24 percent
HIMA-forecasted annual growth
estimates rank the health care
for the years 1990-1995.
rates of approximately 19.0 percent
technology industry as the fastest
HIMA's projections represent a
for 1990 and 15.5 percent for 1990-
growing U.S. industry in 1991, with
conservative estimate of the
1995, U.S. exports would reach $13.1
an expected growth rate of 7.3
industry's future prospects, given
billion in 1995. Imports, however,
percent (on a constant dollar basis)
recent historical trends. Specifically,
are expected to grow much more
modestly over the next several years,
with annual growth forecast to be
Figure 16
GROWTH RATE PROJECTIONS FOR SELECTED U.S. INDUSTRIES
about 7.6 percent in 1990 and 6.9
1991
percent in 1990-1995, which would
place U.S. imports of medical devices
All U.S. industries
at $4.7 billion in 1995.
Based on these projections, the
Medical equipment
U.S. trade surplus in medical
products would reach $8.4 billion in
Aerospace
1995 (Figure 19). Under HIMA's
Computers
conservative projections, the size of
the U.S. market for health care
Industrial machinery
technology products, in terms of
consumption, would be $35.5 billion
Machine tools
in 1995, reflecting average annual
growth of 5 percent during 1990-
Rubber/plastics products
1995.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
It is important to note that these
projections assume no major changes
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1991.
in the regulatory or competitive
22
HIMA
Figure 17
about 2 percent (Figure 18). The
U.S. HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY GROWTH
1990-1995
competitive edge the U.S. health care
technology industry currently holds
in world markets could substantially
Amounts
Annual growth
(in $ billions)
(in percentages)
deteriorate and, ultimately, the health
and wealth of the nation could suffer.
Category
1990
1995
1990
1990-1995
These potentially negative factors can
U.S. production
31.0
43.9
8.1
7.4
be divided into two categories -
Exports
6.5
13.1
19.0
15.5
domestic and international
Imports
3.3
4.7
7.6
6.9
(Figure 20).
U.S. trade surplus
3.2
8.4
39.1
24.3
U.S. market size (consumption)
27.8
35.5
5.7
5.1
Domestic Factors
How the FDA implements the
Source: HIMA projections.
Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990
could have a tremendous impact on
the strength of the U.S. health care
technology industry's future perfor-
mance. All of the innovations that
Figure 18
U.S. PRODUCTION OF HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
flow from the industry must pass
1985-1995
through the FDA's approval process
45
before they can benefit American
patients. If that approval process is
40
slowed or disrupted, the flow of
35
innovations will also be slowed and
30
disrupted.
$ billions
25
The most apparent losers in that
instance would be the Americans
20
Projected growth under
who would have lived longer or had
15
current regulatory and
better lives if they had had access to
international environment
10
Projected growth under
the latest technology. At the same
5
negative regulatory and
time, the health care technology
international environment
industry itself would be weakened
0
'85
'86
'87
'88
'89
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
because it could not bring its prod-
ucts to market. Thus, sources of
revenue would be cut off as would
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and industry sources.
opportunities to continue developing
the stalled technologies. Meanwhile,
companies in nations without
environment in which the industry
hands of policymakers. Ironically,
regulatory bottlenecks would be able
operates. There are, however, a
the policy options that could have the
to forge ahead with their innovation
number of potential changes facing
most negative effects on the industry
processes in their home markets and
the industry that could substantially
from a competitiveness standpoint
make themselves increasingly
alter the industry's future
are those designed to improve the
competitive in the global market,
performance.
current system for medical products
while American companies lag. An
from a regulatory standpoint. The
efficient FDA, therefore, is a vital
NEGATIVE SCENARIO
impact of these options could be
ingredient in preserving the U.S.
great, however, reducing the
industry's international preeminence.
Nearly all of the factors that could
industry's 1990-1995 growth
Three policy areas are particularly
dim the U.S. health care technology
potential from the currently projected
important here: protecting the FDA's
industry's growth prospects are in the
annual rate of 7.4 percent to only
review procedures, providing
23
HIMA
Figure 19
to the FDA's review procedures that
PROJECTED TRADE SURPLUS FOR MEDICAL PRODUCTS UNDER CURRENT
are likely to complicate further the
ENVIRONMENT, 1985-1995
510(k) process upon which the U.S.
14
health care technology industry must
Exports
so heavily depend to get improved
12
Imports
Surplus
products to market. Requirements
10
contained in the new legislation
include changes in premarket review
$ billions
8
requirements, including the prepara-
tion of a summary of safety and
6
effectiveness data for most products
4
and the certification that a search of
adverse incidents for certain products
2
has been conducted. Additional
requirements include tracking certain
0
'85
'86
'87
'88
'89
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
high-risk devices, reporting removals
and corrective actions taken by
Source: 1990-1995 figures are HIMA projections based on historical data from the U.S. Department of
Commerce.
manufacturers, postmarket surveil-
lance and reporting by health care
providers of certain incidents
involving devices. The new law also
Figure 20
adds design validation of quality
POTENTIAL NEGATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
systems to the FDA's good manufac-
turing practices (GMPs) require-
ments, which will increase the
U.S. Legislative and Regulatory Factors
regulatory burden on the industry, but
Adding requirements to the FDA's review process
may also facilitate agreement
A lack of resources at FDA
between the United States and the EC
Imposition of user fees
on a common GMP standard. The
Reductions in reimbursement levels/coverage
legislation also provides the FDA
Cost-control measures discouraging innovation
with the authority to assess civil
Ill-conceived clinical laboratory regulations
penalties, to issue emergency recalls
and to suspend PMAs temporarily.
Foreign Regulatory Factors
Although it is unclear how these
Imposition of price controls on most medical products in Japan
new requirements initially will affect
Regulatory gridlock and chaos as a result of EC 1992
the efficiency of the FDA's review
Cost-control measures discouraging innovation
processes, the legislation is expected
Source: HIMA.
to create some degree of regulatory
uncertainty in the marketplace. The
uncertainty is likely to remain until
sufficient resources to the FDA and
legislation and its implementation. As
the new requirements have been
avoiding the imposition of user fees.
discussed in the previous chapter, the
implemented by the government and
The new requirements to the
number of PMAs approved and
understood by an industry that
FDA's review process called for by
510(k)s favorably reviewed had
innovates very rapidly. Lacking any
recent legislation, including the Safe
already fallen in FY 1990, while at
additional resources for the FDA, the
Medical Devices Act of 1990, could
the same time the average number of
legislation is also likely to increase
significantly impair the competitive-
days required for reviews and
the FDA's paperwork load, further
ness of the U.S. health care technol-
approvals had increased.
slowing down product review times.
ogy industry, if only because of the
The Safe Medical Devices Act of
The second important policy area,
uncertainty caused by the new
1990 adds a number of requirements
FDA resources, has long been a
24
HIMA
problem for the agency and the
scheme contained in the President's
only hope for restoring limited
industry. In fiscal 1989, for example,
FY 1991 budget proposal. The
hearing to a significant number of
the FDA's Device Center had only
President's budget proposal called for
profoundly hard-of-hearing people.
3.2 percent more staff-years at its
companies to pay some $157 million
In addition, because of the Medicare
disposal than it did in 1980, even
in FDA user fees in FY 1991 even
restriction, one manufacturer of the
though the device submissions it
though they already contribute
device has discontinued production.
must handle had grown by more than
millions of dollars each year to the
The Medicare coverage decision
155 percent during that period. In an
support of the federal government in
process is another area of concern.
era of high federal budget deficits,
the form of corporate income taxes.
The process for determining whether
such problems may only grow worse.
What's more, only a portion of the
a new product should be paid for, and
Continued, chronic under-funding
revenues from user fees would
at what level of reimbursement, has
will prevent the agency from attract-
actually go toward FDA program
become increasingly difficult as
ing and retaining enough qualified
improvements. Beyond that, industry
government health agencies have
reviewers and scientists to handle the
funding of FDA activities raises a
intensified their efforts to evaluate
flow of applications for FDA product
host of conflict-of-interest questions
new technology before paying for its
approvals.
and undermines the concept of public
use.
Stalling the movement of innova-
funding for federal activities that
A recent study found that Medi-
tions from the labs to the marketplace
benefit the public at large.
care coverage decisions for new
is just as detrimental for the industry
In addition to policy consider-
products took an average of nearly
and the Americans in need of the new
ations related to the FDA, the U.S.
2.4 years to complete. For one
products whether it occurs because
health care technology industry's
product, the review and approval
the FDA review process is made
growth prospects could be harmed by
time took 5.5 years. 13 In the case of
more burdensome or because the
changes in other federal regulations,
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
FDA lacks the resources to do its job
such as those pertaining to the
the coverage decision process took
efficiently. Under-funding the FDA
Medicare program, to laboratory
3.5 years. Delays in the decision
can also lead to inconsistent compli-
testing requirements and to environ-
process are particularly common
ance enforcement, which further
mental safety issues.
for implantables and other high-
discourages the industry from making
The Medicare payment program is
technology products. While the
new, more effective products
an issue that is likely to be of increas-
evaluations take place, many prod-
available while encouraging poor-
ing importance in coming years.
ucts that could save lives or other-
quality products that, ultimately, will
Medicare coverage policies involve a
wise improve patient care are denied
harm the reputation of better-quality
large portion of the U.S. health care
to patients.
products. Lack of resources can also
delivery system and directly affect
Future changes, such as the
limit the FDA's ability to inspect
the environment for technological
recently passed Medicare physician
imported products and manufacturing
innovation. Over the past decade,
payment reform legislation, pose
facilities overseas, which in turn can
Medicare coverage and payment
similar challenges to the health care
result in delays or inadequate
regulations were implemented that
technology industry. If reimburse-
inspection of foreign products.
constrained the introduction and
ment levels are reduced significantly,
The third important policy area,
diffusion of some new technologies.
the amount of money available to be
user fees, is sometimes suggested as
A case that exemplifies the effects
plowed back into the development of
the panacea for the FDA's funding
of these regulations is the cochlear
new technologies and products will
problems. Such fees, however, have
implant, a device designed to aid
also be reduced. The same effect
the effect of taxing innovation and
patients with hearing disabilities. A
could be caused by instituting certain
represent a special hardship for the
recent study found that Medicare
Medicare cost-control measures that
small, entrepreneurial companies that
payment for the cochlear implant
preclude the use of leading-edge
are an especially vital part of the
remains well below its cost, with the
technology. By discouraging
health care technology industry. The
result that hospitals restrict the avail-
innovation, certain cost-control
cost of a single premarket approval
ability of the implant to Medicare
measures may, in fact, actually serve
for a new device would be an
beneficiaries.¹² This is despite the
to keep costs up, because develop-
estimated $90,000 under the user fee
fact that cochlear implants remain the
ments that might reduce the cost of
25
HIMA
patient treatment will simply never
International Factors
tion bodies is not allowed to rely on
occur. According to one expert
Because the U.S. health care
information from U.S. test and
panel, technology will save more
technology industry is such a strong
inspection facilities, then U.S.
than $200 million in Medicare
exporter, negative changes in the
manufacturers could face long delays
hospital costs this fiscal year alone.¹⁴
international context in which the
and de facto discrimination in
In terms of the laboratory testing
industry operates could have a major
entering the EC 1992 market.
issue, the regulations being drafted to
impact on the industry's performance
In Japan, the government is also in
implement the Clinical Laboratory
in coming years. Such changes
the process of revising its health care
Improvement Amendments of 1988
include developments in the interna-
requirements and reimbursement
may severely impact the health care
tional regulatory environment and in
system in order to control the cost of
technology industry by substantially
the overall competitiveness of foreign
serving its rapidly aging population.
reducing the diagnostic testing done
suppliers.
As part of these efforts, the Japanese
in physicians' offices and in facilities
The European Community (EC)
recently proposed establishing price
other than traditional laboratories.
and Japan represent major markets
controls in the three areas of
The changes in laboratory testing that
for health care technology products.
implantables in which U.S. industry
could result from these regulations
In 1990, the EC market for medical
is most competitive and dominates
may add up to a multimillion-dollar
devices and diagnostic products
the Japanese market. Thus far, the
loss to the diagnostics sector of the
amounted to $18.1 billion, while the
Japanese government has agreed to
industry - while at the same time
Japanese market stood at $10.5
consult with the U.S. government and
increasing the costs of testing and
billion. U.S. medical products
industry regarding this issue, but the
making testing services less acces-
companies, given their overseas
possibility remains that some form of
sible in rural and inner-city areas.
investments in local production as
price controls may be implemented
A number of environmental and
well as their trade interests in these
and, in fact, may be imposed across a
worker safety regulations are
markets, could be significantly
broad range of medical products in
currently under consideration at both
affected by negative developments in
Japan.
the state and federal level that will
either the regulatory environments of
As the chapter on international
significantly affect certain segments
these countries or the degree of
trade showed, the U.S. health care
of the health care technology
access they have to these markets.
technology industry excels at
industry. These regulations cover
The EC is currently developing
exporting its products around the
issues ranging from industrial
legislation for the regulation of
world. However, significant changes
emissions to disposal of medical
medical devices in the unified
in the level and quality of foreign
wastes to increased penalties for
European marketplace. The EC's
competition could also have a great
workplace safety and health viola-
plans to completely overhaul and
effect on the future performance of
tions. Under the recently revised
harmonize its approval process by
the industry in the United States.
Clean Air Act, the Environmental
1992 will create uncertainty and
European and Japanese health care
Protection Agency is expected to
possible chaos for manufacturers
technology companies are extremely
propose new federal emission
trying to access the European market.
competitive on a global basis.
standards for a number of chemicals
It is not yet clear what level of
Japanese companies are particularly
used in the health care technology
regulation the industry will face there
competitive in the areas of x-ray and
industry, including ethylene oxide.
after 1992. Nor is it clear whether
imaging equipment. With the next
The revised Act is expected to
U.S. companies will have nondis-
step forward in x-ray technology
increase the costs of doing business
criminatory access to the EC market-
likely to come from high-definition
in the health care technology industry
place. The U.S. industry could be
imaging, the Japanese are expected to
and, together with the other regula-
seriously disadvantaged if European
remain strong in this area. With
tory and legislative factors discussed
testing and certification procedures
regard to European companies,
above, could have a significant
do not provide the flexibility for tests
German suppliers are particularly
impact on the future performance of
and inspections to be carried out by
competitive across the broad range of
the industry.
non-European bodies or outside the
medical products, including imaging
EC's geographical boundaries. If the
equipment. Figure 21 illustrates the
limited number of European certifica-
relative competitiveness of U.S.
26
HIMA
Figure 21
play. If, as foreign governments
RELATIVE COMPETITIVENESS OF U.S. INDUSTRY
strengthen and nurture their health
care technology companies, the
Supplies, instruments
United States makes it more difficult
Implantables
and equipment
for American companies to innovate
and market their products, U.S.
industry's global competitiveness
may erode quickly.
In fact, HIMA calculates that if
In vitro
Electromedical
unfavorable U.S. and foreign
diagnostics
(imaging) equipment
regulatory measures are enacted or if
U.S. product groups that are
U.S. product groups that are
foreign competitors grow in strength,
very competitive and in which
very competitive and in which
the industry's current annual growth
foreign products are currently
foreign products are also
less competitive
extremely competitive
projections of 7.4 percent could be
reduced to a much weaker 2 percent
Note: "Relative competitiveness" is based on market sales rather than on techno-
or so. In addition, other non-
logical superiority.
regulatory factors such as procure-
Source: HIMA.
ment practices can adversely affect
future growth prospects. Many of the
negative factors that could so
industry across the range of health
medical device market - like the
debilitate an industry with such
care technology products. ("Relative
U.S. market — has grown rapidly in
promise are in the hands of American
competitiveness" is based on market
recent years. Although U.S. medical
policymakers, however. Wise
sales rather than on technological
device exports to Japan have been
decisionmaking at home and wise
superiority.)
rising significantly, there are indica-
foreign trade policies can help offset
One factor that could affect the
tions that the actual U.S. share of the
whatever competitive advantages
level of competition that the U.S.
Japanese market has remained
foreign governments try to bestow
health care technology industry faces
constant.
upon health care companies based in
from overseas is the support that
Similarly, Germany - like the
their countries. Therefore, the fate of
foreign governments provide their
United States - has a sizable global
the U.S. health care technology
own industries. A recent U.S.
trade surplus in health care technol-
industry, the people it employs and
Department of Commerce study
ogy trade. In fact, Germany is the
the people it benefits with life-saving
warns that trends emerging overseas
only country to run a trade surplus in
and life-enhancing products is to no
in product introduction and govern-
medical products with both the
small degree a matter for America's
ment support to industry are making
United States and Japan. The global
leaders to decide.
foreign companies more vital
strength of the German industry and
competitors than ever before.¹⁵
America's chronic medical products
POSITIVE SCENARIO
Given the increasingly favorable
trade deficit with Germany point to
climate some foreign health care
the danger inherent in allowing the
There are, of course, circum-
technology companies are enjoying
U.S. health care technology industry
stances that could fuel the U.S. health
in their home countries, the U.S.
to falter. Although the U.S. health
care technology industry's growth
industry may begin to lag behind
care technology industry stacks up
beyond what HIMA's conservative
both Japanese and EC companies in
incredibly well when compared to
forecasts predict. These circum-
certain advanced medical technology
other U.S. industrial sectors, its
stances are, generally speaking, the
areas, particularly imaging equipment
continued competitiveness hinges on
mirror image of those outlined in the
and diagnostics, the report found.
not yielding any advantage to its
negative scenario above and include
The U.S. industry's future success,
aggressive and able foreign counter-
potential changes in the U.S. regula-
therefore, is much more fragile than
parts. Here, then, the domestic U.S.
tory and legislative environment and
its strong historical performance
policy considerations outlined at the
in the international marketplace.
suggests. For example, the Japanese
beginning of this chapter come into
To avoid complicating its current
27
HIMA
review procedures, the FDA could
restructuring of Japan's distribution
implement the new Safe Medical
system (and associated regulatory
Devices Act of 1990 in a manner that
mechanisms) that reduces the many
minimizes the potential negative
inefficiencies that contribute to
impact and uncertainty caused by any
higher prices there.
major new legislation of this type.
The U.S. health care technology
But some degree of uncertainty and
industry could also benefit from
anxiety cannot be avoided. HIMA
improvements in international trade
will work with the FDA to lessen this
rules in the General Agreements on
concern. Furthermore, Congress
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as a result
could end the chronic under-funding
of the Uruguay Round of negotia-
of the agency, providing the FDA
tions. These negotiations may lead to
with the resources to attract well-
significantly reduced tariff and non-
qualified scientists to develop
tariff barriers in the major medical
guidance on regulatory requirements
products markets. In addition,
and to serve as medical reviewers.
economic growth in non-traditional
Other domestic factors that
markets such as Asia and Eastern
would aid the U.S. health care
Europe, as well as a U.S.-Mexico
technology industry's growth include
Free Trade Agreement, could lead to
increased coordination between the
expanded trade opportunities for U.S.
FDA and the Health Care Financing
companies.
Administration to ensure FDA-
International harmonization of
approved products are covered for
regulatory requirements, a long-term
Medicare reimbursement purposes.
goal of the U.S. health care technol-
A more efficient system of preparing
ogy industry, would bring significant
export certificates could also aid the
benefits to the quality of health care
industry by reducing the delays that
in the United States and to the U.S.
U.S. suppliers face in marketing their
industry. Harmonization of require-
products overseas.
ments (such as those for quality
A number of international factors
assurance) with those of other
could also fuel the U.S. health care
countries would enable manufactur-
technology industry's growth. The
ers to meet major requirements for all
unification of the EC in 1992 could
markets and help eliminate many of
lead to the harmonization of regula-
the trade barriers U.S. companies
tory requirements in the 12-nation
face overseas. Finally, efforts to
market and contribute to increased
enhance overall U.S. competitive-
sales prospects there for U.S.
ness, such as reduction of the U.S.
companies - if the level of regula-
budget deficit and continued focus on
tion in the EC 1992 market is not
regulatory reform, are positive factors
unduly burdensome and if U.S.
that would contribute to increased
suppliers get equal access to the
growth prospects for U.S. industries
market. U.S. companies' concern
in general.
over access to the European market
In sum, if some of the above
will be greatly reduced if European
positive changes were implemented
certification bodies have the ability to
by policymakers, in the U.S. or
subcontract outside the EC for
abroad, the U.S. industry could easily
product testing and quality assurance
continue the near double-digit growth
inspections. In the Japanese market,
that it experienced during the 1980s.
U.S. companies could benefit from a
28
HIMA
V. CONCLUSION
In recent years, the U.S. health
impair the industry's ability to buoy
competitiveness.¹⁶ With regard to the
care technology industry has per-
the nation's trade balance and - just
health care technology industry, it is
formed extremely well during a
as importantly — to safeguard the
important that there be cooperation
turbulent period for the United States
health and well-being of every
between industry and government, as
in international trade. The consis-
American.
well as within government itself, to
tency of the industry's performance
Some of the factors that will
achieve a more coordinated approach
has been built on a tradition of
determine the industry's fate are also
in dealing with health care issues
product excellence, technological
in the hands of U.S. policymakers.
affecting the industry's competitive-
innovation and rapid, but careful,
American legislators and regulators
ness. This includes more consistent
product commercialization. Recent
will determine how efficient the FDA
regulatory and reimbursement
dramatic increases in export perfor-
is in coming years, how well attuned
climates and a continued focus on
mance and the overall trade surplus
to new technologies Medicare is, how
opening global markets.
of the industry are the dividends of
reasonable laboratory testing regula-
By working together, the U.S
the industry's investment in research
tions are and how aggressive U.S.
government and the U.S. health care
and development. In coming years,
negotiations with trading partners are
technology industry can continue to
the industry is expected to remain a
in matters such as assuring U.S.
meet these challenges and to fulfill
major contributor to U.S. manufac-
access to the post-EC 1992 market-
these important national priorities.
turing growth and trade performance,
place.
with a projected trade surplus of $8.4
Greater coordination within U.S.
billion in 1995.
government circles will be needed to
The commitment of America's
shape and balance often competing
health care technology companies,
national priorities — the need for
both large and small, to R&D and to
U.S. competitiveness versus the need
exporting sets the industry apart from
for adequate regulatory controls, for
many others. Its future rests on the
instance. The poor trade perfor-
ability of these companies to continue
mance of other U.S. industries
their commitment to developing and
throughout the 1980s should serve as
marketing innovative products at
a reminder that this industry's
home and abroad. Moreover, the
competitiveness is as fragile as the
industry must strive to meet this
patients it serves. Moreover, it serves
challenge in the face of stronger and
to underscore the importance of
stronger foreign competition and
policy coordination both within the
tighter and tighter government
government and between the govern-
reimbursement and regulatory
ment and the private sector.
controls.
In his recent book, George Lodge
HIMA recognizes that the health
points out that coordination of
care technology industry itself is
government policies - both those
responsible for continuing to meet its
that promote and those that constrain
global competitors with the same
industry is a critical factor for
vision, energy and innovativeness as
achieving competitive success in the
it has in the past. The industry is also
high-tech industries of tomorrow.
responsible for alerting U.S.
To this end, industry needs to work
policymakers to the priorities and
with policymakers in all areas of
pitfalls in the regulatory and legisla-
the government to promote aware-
tive spheres that could boost or
ness of the importance of industrial
29
HIMA
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
NOTES ON DATA
1. The data utilized in this study, with the exception of
3. In addition, HIMA has utilized, where available, data
U.S. patent data, are based on the U.S. government's
collected on diagnostic substances under SIC category
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes.
2835. This category was also created as a result of
recent changes in the SIC system.
2. The Department of Commerce defines the medical
device industry using a total of five SIC codes:
4. It should also be noted that due to the recent changes in
the SIC system, as well as U.S. adoption of the Harmo-
Surgical and Medical Instruments (SIC 3841)
nized Tariff System (HS) in 1989, trade data for periods
Surgical Appliances and Supplies (SIC 3842)
prior to 1989 are not directly comparable to data for
Dental Equipment and Supplies (SIC 3843)
1989-1990. However, the data are reflective of overall
X-Ray Apparatus and Tubes (SIC 3844)
trends and are useful for comparison purposes.
Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus
(SIC 3845)
5. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not provide
a specific category that encompasses all medical
Appendix B lists the products that are included in these
devices. For its analysis of U.S. patents granted to
SIC medical device categories. Prior to 1987 changes
medical devices, HIMA evaluated those categories that
in the SIC system, x-ray apparatus and electromedical
should be considered medical devices.
equipment were grouped under the same four-digit SIC
category.
30
APPENDIX B
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SIC CLASSIFICATIONS
SIC Code 3841: Surgical & Medical Instruments
Anesthesia apparatus
Muscle exercise apparatus, ophthalmic
Biopsy instruments and equipment
Needle holders, surgical
Blood pressure apparatus
Needles, suture
Blood transfusion equipment
Operating tables
Bone drills
Ophthalmic instruments and apparatus
Bone plates and screws
Ophthalmometers and ophthalmoscopes
Bone rongeurs
Optometers
Bronchoscopes, except electromedical
Optoscopes, except electromedical
Cannulae
Oxygen tents
Catheters
Pelvimeters
Clamps, surgical
Physiotherapy equipment, electrical
Corneal microscopes
Probes, surgical
Cystoscopes, except electromedical
Retinoscopes, except electromedical
Diagnostic apparatus, physicians'
Retractors
Eye examining instruments and apparatus
Rifles for propelling hypodermics into animals
Fixation appliances, internal
Saws, surgical
Forceps, surgical
Skin grafting equipment
Gastroscopes, except electromedical
Slit lamps (ophthalmic goods)
Hemodialysis apparatus
Speculums
Holders, surgical needle
Sphygmomanometers
Hypodermic needles and syringes
Stethoscopes and stethographs
IV transfusion apparatus
Suction therapy apparatus
Inhalation therapy equipment
Surgical instruments and apparatus, except electromedical
Inhalators, surgical and medical
Surgical knife blades and handles
Instruments and apparatus, except electromedical:
Surgical stapling devices
medical, surgical, ophthalmic and veterinary
Tonometers, medical
Instruments, microsurgical: except electromedical
Trocars
Knives, surgical
Ultrasonic medical cleaning equipment
Metabolism apparatus
Veterinarians' instruments and apparatus
31
SIC Code 3842: Orthopedic, Prosthetic and Surgical Appliances and Supplies
Abdominal supporters, braces and trusses
Intrauterine devices
Absorbent cotton, sterilized
Iron lungs
Adhesive tape and plasters, medicated or nonmedicated
Life preservers, except cork and inflatable
Applicators, cotton tipped
Ligatures, medical
Atomizers, medical
Limbs, artificial
Autoclaves, hospital and surgical
Linemen's safety belts
Bandages and dressings, surgical and orthopedic
Models, anatomical
Bandages: plastics, muslin, plaster of paris
Noise protectors, personal
Belts: sanitary, surgical and corrective
Orthopedic devices and materials
Braces, elastic
Pads, incontinent and bed
Braces, orthopedic
Personal safety appliances and equipment
Bullet proof vests
Plugs, ear and nose
Canes, orthopedic
Prosthetic appliances and supplies
Cervical collars
Radiation shielding aprons, gloves and sheeting
Clothing, fire resistant and protective
Respirators
Colostomy appliances
Respiratory protection equipment, personal
Com remover and bunion pads
Restraints, patient
Corsets, surgical
Safety appliances and equipment, personal
Cosmetic restorations
Safety gloves, all materials
Cotton, absorbent: sterilized
Socks, stump
Cotton, including cotton balls
Space suits
Crutches and walkers
Splints, pneumatic and wood
Drapes, surgical: cotton
Sponges, surgical
Dressings, surgical
Sterilizers, hospital and surgical
Ear stoppers
Stockinette, original
Elastic hosiery, orthopedic
Stretchers
Extension shoes, orthopedic
Suits, firefighting: asbestos
First aid, snake bite and burn kits
Supports: abdominal, ankle, arch and kneecap
Foot appliances, orthopedic
Surgical appliances and supplies except medical
Fracture appliances, surgical
instruments
Gas masks
Suspensories
Gauze, surgical: not made in weaving mills
Sutures
Grafts, artificial: for surgery-made of braided or mesh
Swabs, sanitary cotton
artificial fibers
Tongue depressors
Gynecological supplies and appliances
Traction apparatus
Hearing aids
Trusses: orthopedic and surgical
Helmets, space
Welders' hoods
Hosiery, support
Wheel chairs
Hydrotherapy equipment
Whirlpool baths, hydrotherapy equipment
Implants, surgical
Infant incubators
32
SIC Code 3843: Dental Equipment and Supplies
Abrasive points, wheels and disks: dental
Forceps, dental
Autoclaves, dental
Furnaces, laboratory dental
Broaches, dental
Glue, dental
Burs, dental
Gold, dental
Cabinets, dental
Hand pieces and parts, dental
Cement, dental
Ultrasonic dental equipment
Chairs, dentists'
Dental laboratory equipment
Compounds, dental
Dental metal
Cutting instruments, dental
Impression material, dental
Dental alloys for amalgams
Investment material, dental
Dental engines
Orthodontic appliances
Dental equipment and supplies
Plaster, dental
Dental hand instruments, including forceps
Pliers, dental
Denture materials
Sterilizers, dental
Drills, dental
Teeth, artificial not made in dental laboratories
Enamels, dentists'
Tools, dentists'
Wax, dental
SIC Code 3844: X-Ray Apparatus and Tubes and Related Irradiation Apparatus
Beta-ray irradiation equipment
Radium equipment
Fluoroscopes
Therapeutic x-ray apparatus and tubes: medical, industrial
Fluoroscopic x-ray apparatus and tubes
and research
Gamma-ray irradiation equipment
X-ray apparatus and tubes: medical, industrial, research
Irradiation equipment
and control
Lamps, x-ray
X-ray generators
Nuclear irradiation equipment
Radiographic x-ray apparatus and tubes: medical,
industrial, research
33
SIC Code 3845: Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus
Arc lamp units, electrotherapeutic:
Laser systems and equipment, medical
except infrared and ultraviolet
Lithotripters
Audiological equipment, electromedical
Magnetic resonance imaging device (diagnostic), nuclear
Automated blood and body fluid analyzers,
Otoscopes, electromedical
except laboratory
Pacemakers
Bronchoscopes, electromedical
Patient monitoring equipment: intensive care/coronary
Cardiographs
unit
Colonscopes, electromedical
Phonocardiographs
Computerized axial tomography (CT/CAT scanner)
Positron emission tomography
apparatus
Respiratory analysis equipment, electromedical
Cystoscopes, electromedical
Retinoscopes, electromedical
Defibrillators
Surgical support systems: heart-lung machines, except
Dialyzers, electromedical
iron lungs and blood flow systems
Diathermy apparatus, electromedical
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulators (TENS)
Electrocardiographs
Ultrasonic medical equipment, except cleaning
Electroencephalographs
Ultrasonic scanning devices, medical
Electromedical apparatus
Electromyographs
Endoscopic equipment, electromedical: e.g.,
bronchoscopes, cyctoscopes and colonoscopes
Gastroscopes, electromedical
SIC Code 2835: In Vitro and In Vivo Diagnostic Substances
Angionrographic diagnostic agents*
Enzyme and isoenzyme diagnostic reagents
Barium diagnostic agents*
Hematology diagnostic reagents
Blood derivative diagnostic reagents
In vitro diagnostics
Clinical chemistry reagents (including toxicology)
In vivo diagnostics*
Clinical chemistry standards and controls
In vivo radioactive reagents*
(including toxicology)
Iodinated diagnostic agents
Coagulation diagnostic reagents
Metabolite diagnostic reagents
Cold kits for labeling with technetium*
Microbiology, virology and serology diagnostic products
Contrast media diagnostic products*
Pregnancy test kits
(e.g., iodine and barium)
Radioactive diagnostic substances
Cytology and histology diagnostic products
Technetium products*
Diagnostic agents, biological
Viral test diagnostic reagents
Electrolyte diagnostic reagents
*These represent in vivo diagnostic products, the manufacturers of which are represented by pharmaceutical groups.
34
APPENDIX C
TABLES
1. U.S. Market for Health Care Technology Products, 1975-1990
36
2. U.S. Production of Health Care Technology Products, 1987-1990
37
3. 10 Fastest-Growing Four-Digit (SIC) Industries in the U.S., 1991
38
4. Growth Rate Projections for Selected Industry Groups, 1990-1991
39
5. Employment in the Health Care Technology Industry, 1975-1990
40
6. U.S. Trade Balance for Health Care Technology Products, 1975-1990
41
7. Health Care Technology Products Trade Balance with the U.S. by Country, 1980 and 1990
42
8. Trade Balance with the U.S. by Country, 1987-1990
43
9. U.S. Medical Products Exports by Selected Countries, 1980 and 1990
44
10. U.S. Medical Products Imports by Selected Countries, 1980 and 1990
45
11. Health Care Technology Products Trade Balance by Major Product Groups, 1980-1990
46
12. Composition of U.S. Medical Products Exports, 1980-1990
47
13. Composition of U.S. Medical Products Imports, 1980-1990
48
14. Export Intensity and Import Penetration Ratios, 1975-1990
49
15. R&D as a Percentage of Sales in Medical Products and Other Industries, 1988 and 1989
50
16. U.S. Health R&D Compared to Total U.S. R&D, 1978-1989
51
17. FDA Premarket Notifications, 510(k)s, FY 1985-FY 1990
52
18. FDA Original Premarket Approval (PMA) Applications, FY 1985-FY 1990
53
19. Ownership of U.S. Medical Device Patents, 1980-1990
54
20. Projected Industry Performance, 1989-1995
55
35
Table 1
U.S. MARKET FOR HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
1975-1990
($ billions)
Average
Annual Growth
1988-1990
1975
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990*
(percent)
Medical Devices
Production
4.6
9.7
17.5
18.0
21.5
23.2
25.6
27.8
8.9
Exports
0.7
1.7
2.4
2.8
3.2
4.0
4.8
5.7
21.6
Imports
0.3
0.6
1.7
2.2
2.6
3.0
3.0
3.2
7.5
Consumption
4.2
8.7
16.8
17.5
20.9
22.2
23.8
25.3
6.6
Diagnostic Products
Production
0.3
0.9
1.7
2.0
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.4
8.2
Exports
-
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
18.4
Imports
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
60.3
Consumption
0.3
0.6
1.4
1.7
2.2
2.3
2.6
2.8
7.0
TOTAL PRODUCTION
4.9
10.5
19.2
20.1
24.2
26.1
28.7
31.2
8.9
TOTAL CONSUMPTION
4.5
9.3
18.3
19.2
23.1
24.5
26.3
28.0
6.6
* Estimate.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
36
Table 2
U.S. PRODUCTION OF HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
1987-1990
Average
Production ($ billions)
Annual Growth
1988-1990
1987
1988
1989
1990*
(percent)
Medical device production
21.50
23.25
25.55
27.79
8.9
Surgical and medical instruments
7.23
7.98
8.70
9.53
10.8
Surgical appliances and supplies
7.98
8.52
9.29
10.09
11.1
Dental equipment and supplies
1.22
1.22
1.26
1.34
5.4
X-ray apparatus and tubes
1.56
1.52
1.71
1.86
4.7
Electromedical equipment
3.51
4.00
4.59
4.96
9.2
Diagnostic products
2.68
2.88
3.13
3.40
8.2
TOTAL PRODUCTION
24.18
26.13
28.68
31.19
8.9
* Estimate.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
37
Table 3
10 FASTEST GROWING FOUR-DIGIT (SIC) INDUSTRIES IN THE U.S.
1991
(based on constant dollar shipments)
SIC
Percent
Code
Industry
Change
3111
Leather tanning and finishing
9.4
3674
Semiconductors and related devices
8.9
3841
Surgical and medical instruments
8.6
3842
Surgical appliances and supplies
7.6
2833
Medicinals and botanicals
7.1
2835
Diagnostic substances
6.9
2015
Poultry slaughtering and processing
6.8
2836
Biological products except diagnostics
6.2
3721
Aircraft
6.0
3843
Dental equipment and supplies
5.9
Source: U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1991.
38
Table 4
GROWTH RATE PROJECTIONS FOR SELECTED INDUSTRY GROUPS
1990-1991
(based on constant dollar shipments)
Industry Group
1990
1991
Medical devices*
9.1
7.3
Aircraft and parts
17.9
4.6
Steel mill products
-1.0
-4.8
Chemicals
1.6
1.0
Rubber and plastic products
1.0
0.8
Industrial machinery
2.5
1.9
Machine tools
5.3
5.0
Computers
4.4
5.6
Electronic components
1.8
6.2
Motor vehicles
-2.6
-1.4
Construction materials
-0.8
-3.2
Paper and allied products
1.6
2.2
Telephone and communication equipment
1.9
1.9
All industries
1.4
1.1
* Medical devices component of larger category labelled "scientific and medical equipment."
Source: U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1991.
39
Table 5
EMPLOYMENT IN THE HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY
1975-1990
Employment (000)
1975
1980
1985
1987
1988
1989
1990
Medical devices
126.8
168.6
198.4
203.8
213.7
225.0
231.1
Surgical and medical instruments
40.1
51.3
61.4
73.1
76.0
82.1
85.0
Surgical appliances and supplies
54.3
61.8
76.3
78.5
81.2
84.9
87.2
Dental equipment and supplies
14.6
16.7
14.4
14.3
15.0
15.2
15.3
X-ray apparatus and electromedical
17.8
38.8
46.3
-
-
-
-
X-ray apparatus and tubes
-
-
-
8.7
10.2
11.2
12.0
Electromedical equipment
-
-
-
29.2
31.3
31.5
31.6
Diagnostic substances
5.6
10.2
13.7
15.4
15.7
16.6
17.2
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
132.4
178.8
212.1
219.2
229.4
241.6
248.3
Percent Change
Average
Annual Growth
1980-1990
1988-1990
Medical and dental equipment
37.1
4.3
Surgical and medical instruments
65.7
5.2
Surgical appliances and supplies
41.1
5.1
Dental equipment and supplies
-9.2
2.3
X-ray apparatus and electromedical
12.4
-
X-ray apparatus and tubes
-
11.4
Electromedical equipment
-
2.7
Diagnostic substances
68.6
3.8
TOTAL: MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND DIAGNOSTICS
38.9
4.3
Note: Prior to recent changes in the SIC system, x-ray apparatus and electromedical equipment were grouped together
under the same classification (SIC 3693). These products are now broken out separately under SIC 3844 for x-ray
apparatus and SIC 3845 for electromedical equipment. The 1987 changes in the SIC also resulted in a new SIC
category for diagnostic substances, SIC 2835. Employment data on diagnostic products are HIMA estimates.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data and HIMA estimates.
40
Table 6
U.S. TRADE BALANCE FOR HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
1975-1990
($ billions)
1975
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990*
Medical devices
Exports
0.71
1.66
2.42
2.76
3.17
4.05
4.79
5.69
Imports
0.30
0.64
1.74
2.21
2.56
3.00
3.01
3.20
Trade balance
0.41
1.03
0.68
0.55
0.61
1.05
1.78
2.53
Diagnostic products
Exports
0.04
0.22
0.29
0.37
0.47
0.61
0.67
0.77
Imports
-
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.11
0.12
Trade balance
0.04
0.21
0.26
0.34
0.44
0.56
0.57
0.65
TOTAL EXPORTS
0.75
1.88
2.71
3.13
3.64
4.65
5.46
6.46
TOTAL IMPORTS
0.30
0.65
1.77
2.24
2.59
3.04
3.12
3.28
TOTAL TRADE BALANCE
0.45
1.24
0.93
0.89
1.05
1.61
2.34
3.18
* Estimate.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
41
Table 7
HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
TRADE BALANCE WITH THE U.S. BY COUNTRY
1980 and 1990
($ millions)
1980
1990
Exports
Imports
Balance
Exports
Imports
Balance
Canada
229
32
197
Canada
934
93
841
Japan
208
117
92
Italy
355
51
304
Netherlands
104
32
72
France
409
166
243
France
85
24
61
Netherlands
376
141
235
Italy
60
8
53
Belg. & Lux.
203
10
193
U.K.
87
38
49
Australia
199
8
191
Belg. & Lux.
57
8
48
U.K.
388
214
174
Australia
52
6
46
Japan
909
794
115
Mexico
54
11
42
S. Korea
106
16
90
Brazil
26
5
21
Brazil
81
3
78
Taiwan
21
2
19
Taiwan
98
39
59
S. Korea
20
1
19
Switzerland
131
74
57
Switzerland
43
29
14
Mexico
297
254
43
China
6
-
6
Ireland
75
66
9
Ireland
16
11
5
China
37
28
9
Sweden
25
25
0
Sweden
94
111
-17
West Germany
164
225
-61
West Germany
691
818
-127
Note: Figures for 1980 exclude diagnostic products, whereas 1990 figures are estimates based on preliminary data.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
42
Table 8
TRADE BALANCE WITH THE U.S. BY COUNTRY
1987-1990
($ millions)
1987
1988
1989
1990
Exports
Imports
Balance
Exports
Imports
Balance
Exports
Imports
Balance
Exports
Imports
Balance
Canada
483
86
397
530
108
422
573
87
486
934
93
841
Japan
532
627
-95
680
716
-36
842
735
107
909
794
115
EC
1,529
1,304
225
1,956
1,457
499
2,326
1,485
841
2,522
1,505
1,017
Belg. & Lux.
141
12
129
147
12
135
181
9
172
200
138
62
France
221
123
98
309
150
159
356
144
212
409
166
243
Germany
429
692
-265
527
765
-238
642
835
-194
691
818
-127
Ireland
47
53
-6
73
57
16
69
59
10
75
66
9
Italy
155
39
116
225
44
181
268
43
225
355
51
304
Netherlands
200
125
75
253
154
99
315
139
176
376
141
235
U.K.
243
179
64
294
203
91
331
196
135
388
214
174
43
Western Europe
(EC & EFTA)
1,714
1,496
218
2,223
1,683
540
2,642
1,703
939
2,879
1,748
1,131
Mexico
139
129
10
189
178
11
228
214
14
297
254
43
Australia
132
13
119
161
20
141
193
13
180
199
8
191
Sweden
51
83
-32
87
91
-4
96
90
6
94
111
-17
Switzerland
74
69
5
93
82
11
119
72
47
131
74
57
Taiwan
46
34
12
71
41
30
77
43
34
98
39
59
S. Korea
51
10
41
78
20
58
96
18
78
106
16
90
Brazil
23
4
19
34
4
30
91
3
88
81
3
78
China
31
4
27
41
15
26
39
28
11
37
28
9
WORLD
3,639
2,591
1,048
4,650
3,042
1,609
5,456
3,115
2,341
6,459
3,279
3,179
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
Table 9
U.S. MEDICAL PRODUCTS EXPORTS BY SELECTED COUNTRIES
1980 and 1990
($ millions)
1980
As Percent
1990
As Percent
U.S. Exports
of Total
U.S. Exports
of Total
1. Canada
229
13.8
1. Canada
934
14.5
2. Japan
208
12.5
2. Japan
909
14.1
3. West Germany
164
9.8
3.
West Germany
691
10.7
4. Netherlands
104
6.3
4. France
409
6.3
5. U.K.
87
5.3
5. U.K.
388
6.0
6. France
85
5.1
6. Netherlands
376
5.8
7. Italy
60
3.6
7. Italy
355
5.5
8. Belg. & Lux.
57
3.4
8. Mexico
297
4.6
9. Mexico
54
3.2
9. Belg. & Lux.
203
3.1
10. Australia
52
3.1
10. Australia
199
3.1
11. Switzerland
43
2.6
11. Switzerland
131
2.0
12. Brazil
26
1.6
12. S. Korea
106
1.6
13. Sweden
25
1.5
13. Taiwan
98
1.5
14. Taiwan
21
1.3
14. Sweden
94
1.5
15. S. Korea
20
1.2
15. Brazil
81
1.3
16. Ireland
16
0.9
16. Ireland
75
1.2
17. China
6
0.3
17. China
37
0.6
Note: Figures for 1980 exclude diagnostic products, whereas 1990 figures are estimates based on preliminary data.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
44
Table 10
U.S. MEDICAL PRODUCTS IMPORTS BY SELECTED COUNTRIES
1980 and 1990
($ millions)
1980
As Percent
1990
As Percent
U.S. Imports
of Total
U.S. Imports
of Total
1.
West Germany
225
35.4
1. West Germany
818
24.9
2. Japan
117
18.3
2. Japan
794
24.2
3. U.K.
38
6.0
3. Mexico
254
7.7
4.
Netherlands
32
5.1
4. U.K.
214
6.5
5. Canada
32
5.0
5. France
166
5.1
6. Switzerland
29
4.5
6. Netherlands
141
4.3
7. Sweden
25
3.9
7. Sweden
111
3.4
8. France
24
3.7
8. Canada
93
2.8
9. Ireland
11
1.7
9. Switzerland
74
2.3
10. Mexico
11
1.7
10. Ireland
66
2.0
11. Belg. & Lux.
8
1.3
11. Italy
51
1.6
12. Italy
8
1.2
12. Taiwan
39
1.2
13. Australia
6
0.9
13. China
28
0.9
14. Brazil
5
0.8
14. S. Korea
16
0.5
15. Taiwan
2
0.3
15. Belg. & Lux.
10
0.3
16. S. Korea
1
0.2
16. Australia
8
0.2
17. China
-
0.1
17. Brazil
3
0.1
Note: Figures for 1980 exclude diagnostic products, whereas 1990 figures are estimates based on preliminary data.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
45
Table 11
HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
TRADE BALANCE BY MAJOR PRODUCT GROUPS
1980 -1990
($ millions)
Average
Annual Growth
Exports
1980
1987
1988
1989
1990*
1988-1990
Medical devices
1,663
3,170
4,045
4,785
5,686
21.6
Surgical/medical instru.
485
765
963
1,497
1,853
35.0
Surgical supplies
213
521
668
899
1,116
25.3
Dental equipment
129
272
322
281
358
10.9
X-ray & electromedical
839
-
-
-
-
-
X-ray apparatus
-
338
410
505
566
18.9
Electromedical
-
1,274
1,682
1,603
1,793
13.0
Diagnostic products
219
469
606
671
773
18.4
TOTAL EXPORTS
1,882
3,639
4,651
5,456
6,459
21.2
Average
Annual Growth
Imports
1980
1987
1988
1989
1990*
1988-1990
Medical devices
636
2,557
2,995
3,009
3,156
7.5
Surgical/medical instru.
180
676
792
671
744
10.0
Surgical supplies
96
338
393
372
391
5.2
Dental equipment
42
104
112
141
161
15.9
X-ray & electromedical
319
-
-
-
-
-
X-ray apparatus
-
763
860
873
878
4.9
Electromedical
-
676
838
951
982
13.6
Diagnostic products
9
34
47
106
124
60.3
TOTAL IMPORTS
645
2,591
3,042
3,115
3,280
8.4
Balance
1980
1987
1988
1989
1990*
Medical devices
1,027
613
1,050
1,776
2,530
Surgical/medical instru.
305
89
172
826
1,109
Surgical supplies
117
184
275
527
725
Dental equipment
84
168
210
140
197
X-ray & electromedical
520
-
-
-
-
X-ray apparatus
-
-425
-450
-369
-312
Electromedical
-
598
844
652
811
Diagnostic products
210
435
559
565
649
TOTAL BALANCE
1,237
1,048
1,609
2,341
3,179
* Estimate.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
46
Table 12
COMPOSITION OF U.S. MEDICAL PRODUCTS EXPORTS
1980 1990
($ millions)
Average
Annual Growth
Exports
1980
1987
1988
1989
1990*
1988-1990
Medical devices
1,663
3,170
4,045
4,785
5,686
21.6
Surgical/medical instru.
485
765
963
1,497
1,853
35.0
Surgical supplies
213
521
668
899
1,116
25.3
Dental equipment
129
272
322
281
358
10.9
X-ray & electromedical
839
-
-
-
-
-
X-ray apparatus
-
338
410
505
566
18.9
Electromedical
-
1,274
1,682
1,603
1,793
13.0
Diagnostic products
219
469
606
671
773
18.4
TOTAL EXPORTS
1,882
3,639
4,651
5,456
6,459
21.2
Percentage of Total Exports
1980
1987
1988
1989
1990*
Medical devices
88.4
87.1
87.0
87.7
88.0
Surgical/medical instru.
25.8
21.0
20.7
27.4
28.7
Surgical supplies
11.3
14.3
14.4
16.5
17.3
Dental equipment
6.7
7.5
6.9
5.2
5.5
X-ray & electromedical
44.6
-
-
-
-
X-ray apparatus
-
9.3
8.8
9.3
8.8
Electromedical
-
35.0
36.2
29.4
27.8
Diagnostic products
11.6
12.9
13.0
12.3
12.0
* Estimate.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
47
Table 13
COMPOSITION OF U.S. MEDICAL PRODUCTS IMPORTS
1980-1990
($ millions)
Average
Annual Growth
Imports
1980
1987
1988
1989
1990*
1988-1990
Medical devices
636
2,557
2,995
3,009
3,156
7.5
Surgical/medical instru.
180
676
792
671
744
10.0
Surgical supplies
96
338
393
372
391
5.2
Dental equipment
42
104
112
141
161
15.9
X-ray & electromedical
319
-
-
-
-
-
X-ray apparatus
-
763
860
873
878
4.9
Electromedical
-
676
838
951
982
13.6
Diagnostic products
9
34
47
106
124
60.3
TOTAL IMPORTS
645
2,591
3,042
3,115
3,280
8.4
Percentage of Total Imports
1980
1987
1988
1989
1990*
Medical devices
98.6
98.7
98.4
96.6
96.2
Surgical/medical instru.
27.8
26.1
26.0
21.5
22.7
Surgical supplies
14.8
13.0
12.9
11.9
11.9
Dental equipment
6.5
4.0
3.7
4.5
4.9
X-ray & electromedical
49.4
-
-
-
-
X-ray apparatus
-
29.5
28.3
28.0
26.8
Electromedical
-
26.1
27.6
30.5
29.9
Diagnostic products
1.4
1.3
1.6
3.4
3.8
* Estimate.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data.
48
Table 14
EXPORT INTENSITY AND IMPORT PENETRATION RATIOS
1975-1990
Exports as a Percentage of Shipments
1975
1980
1985
1987
1988
1989
1990*
Medical devices
15.5
17.2
13.8
14.7
17.4
18.7
20.5
Surgical/medical instru.
19.4
17.5
13.0
10.6
12.1
17.2
19.4
Surgical supplies
7.5
6.2
6.9
6.5
7.8
9.7
11.1
Dental equipment
15.0
11.6
12.7
22.4
26.3
22.4
26.6
X-ray & electromedical
26.5
34.7
25.3
-
-
-
-
X-ray apparatus
-
-
-
21.7
26.9
29.5
30.4
Electromedical
-
-
-
36.3
42.1
34.9
36.1
Diagnostic products
11.1
25.5
17.2
17.5
21.0
21.5
22.7
ALL MEDICAL PRODUCTS
15.4
17.8
14.1
15.0
17.8
19.0
20.7
Imports as a Percentage of Consumption
1975
1980
1985
1987
1988
1989
1990*
Medical devices
7.2
7.4
10.3
12.2
13.5
12.7
12.5
Surgical/medical instru.
5.8
7.3
8.7
9.5
10.1
8.5
8.8
Surgical supplies
1.8
2.9
2.5
4.3
4.8
4.2
4.0
Dental equipment
4.1
4.2
7.9
9.9
11.0
12.6
14.0
X-ray & electromedical
24.1
16.8
24.0
-
-
-
-
X-ray apparatus
-
-
-
38.5
43.6
42.0
40.4
Electromedical
-
-
-
23.2
26.6
24.1
23.6
Diagnostic products
1.1
1.4
2.3
1.5
2.0
4.1
4.5
ALL MEDICAL PRODUCTS
7.0
6.9
9.7
11.2
12.4
11.8
11.7
* Estimate.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data, 1990.
49
Table 15
R&D AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALES IN MEDICAL PRODUCTS AND OTHER INDUSTRIES
1988 and 1989
Industry
1988
1989
All-industry composite
3.4
3.4
Health care
8.2
8.6
Medical products and services
6.2
6.2
Drugs and research
10.0
10.1
Aerospace
4.1
4.1
Automotive
3.2
3.4
Chemicals
3.6
3.8
Electrical and electronics
5.3
5.4
Source: Business Week, "R&D Scoreboard," 1989-1990.
50
Table 16
U.S. HEALTH R&D COMPARED TO TOTAL U.S. R&D
1978-1989
($ billions, current $)
Health
R&D as a
Percentage of
Year
Health R&D
Total R&D
Total R&D
1978
6.3
48.1
13.1
1980
7.9
62.6
12.6
1985
13.5
113.6
11.8
1986
14.8
119.6
12.4
1987
16.8
127.5
13.2
1988
18.8
134.2
14.0
1989
20.8
141.8
14.7
Average Annual Percent Growth
1985-89
11.4
7.0
Source: National Institutes of Health, National Institutes of Health Data Book, 1988 and 1990.
51
Table 17
FDA PREMARKET NOTIFICATIONS, 510(K)S
FY 1985-FY 1990
Action
FY 85
FY 86
FY 87
FY 88
FY 89
FY 90
Number received
5,254
5,063
5,265
5,536
7,022
5,831
Number of decisions:
Substantially equivalent
4,491
4,388
4,105
4,432
4,867
4,748
Not substantially equivalent
132
98
103
82
92
117
Other¹
472
873
784
999
1,177
1,332
Total
5,095
5,359
4,992
5,513
6,136
6,197
Percent not substantially
equivalent²
2.8
2.2
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.4
Average review time (days):
Total time
76
72
69
78
82
98
FDA
N/A³
66
56
64
66
78
1
Includes withdrawals, deletions and other administrative actions.
2
Based on "substantially equivalent" and "not substantially equivalent" decisions only.
3
Not available.
Sources: FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Device Evaluation, Annual Report, Fiscal Year
1990, p. 57.
52
Table 18
FDA ORIGINAL PREMARKET APPROVAL (PMA) APPLICATIONS
FY 1985-FY 1990
Action
FY 85
FY 86
FY 87
FY 88
FY 89
FY 90
Number received
97
69
81
96
84
79
Number of final approvals
37
72
46
46
56
47
Average review time (days)
for final approvals:*
FDA
347
395
337 (257)
262 (142)
247 (145)
302 (228)
Non-FDA
43
44
81 (27)
75 (17)
101 (42)
113 (55)
Total
390
439
418 (284)
337 (159)
348 (187)
415 (283)
*
Average review times in parentheses are calculated under the Premarket Approval of Medical Devices Regulation
(21 CFR Part 814).
Sources: FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Device Evaluation, Annual Report, Fiscal Year
1990, p. 52.
53
Table 19
OWNERSHIP OF U.S. MEDICAL DEVICE PATENTS
1980-1990
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990*
Total U.S.
1,494
1,438
1,272
1,242
1,554
1,775
2,040
2,406
2,203
2,886
2,858
Foreign
Japan
122
155
154
148
186
218
230
338
322
453
398
Germany
152
186
122
122
147
157
186
229
174
286
236
United Kingdom
49
57
53
56
56
73
80
101
78
124
132
France
44
42
35
33
54
59
62
91
89
133
106
54
Canada
39
39
27
20
43
40
34
53
50
64
62
Other
154
177
143
144
178
213
276
317
285
340
388
Total foreign
560
656
534
523
664
760
868
1,129
998
1,400
1,322
Total patents
2,054
2,094
1,806
1,765
2,218
2,535
2,908
3,535
3,201
4,286
4,180
Percent foreign
27.3
31.3
29.6
29.6
29.9
30.0
29.8
31.9
31.2
32.7
31.6
* Estimate.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce/Patent and Trademark Office unpublished data, 1991.
Table 20
PROJECTED INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE
1989-1995
($ billions)
Average
Annual
Growth
1989¹
1990²
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1990-1995
Production
28.7
31.0
33.3
35.7
38.2
41.0
43.9
7.4%
Exports
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.6
9.9
11.4
13.1
15.5%
Imports
3.1
3.3
3.6
3.8
4.1
4.4
4.7
6.9%
Trade surplus
2.3
3.2
3.9
4.8
5.8
7.0
8.4
24.3%
Market size
26.3
27.8
29.4
30.9
32.4
34.2
35.5
5.1%
Production (under the
28.7
29.3
29.9
30.5
31.1
31.7
32.3
2.0%
negative scenario)
1
Figures for 1989 represent actual production and trade levels.
2
HIMA projections for 1990-1995 based on U.S. Department of Commerce historical data and projections, with a 10
percent reduction for 1990 and a 20 percent reduction for 1991-1995 to reflect an expected sluggish U.S. economy.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce unpublished data; industry sources.
55
VII. NOTES
1. All trade data and forecast
6. Export intensity measures the
13. National Advisory Council on
assumptions are based on U.S.
percentage of total domestic
Health Care Technology Assess-
Department of Commerce trade
production that is exported.
ment, The Medicare Coverage
statistics and forecasts unless
Import penetration measures the
Process, September 14, 1988.
otherwise noted. Due to changes
percentage of consumption that is
in the Standard Industrial
supplied by imports.
14. Prospective Payment Assessment
Classification (SIC) system and
Commission, Report and Recom-
the recent U.S. conversion to the
7. U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1990,
mendations to the Secretary, U.S.
Harmonized Tariff System (HS),
p. 51-7.
Department of Health and Human
trade data for periods prior to
Services, March 1, 1990, p. 59.
1989 are not directly comparable
8. "Wall Street's View of the Health
to data for 1989-1990. However,
Industry Manufacturing Compa-
15. U.S. Department of Commerce,
they are reflective of overall
nies," John Balkoski, Medical
Technology Administration,
trends and are useful for compari-
Venture Holdings, presentation to
Emerging Technologies: A Survey
son purposes. All data are on a
HIMA's First Global Medical
of Technical and Economic
current dollar basis unless
Device Conference, October
Opportunities, Spring 1990.
otherwise noted.
1990.
16. George C. Lodge, Perestroika for
2. Prospective Payment Assessment
9. National Institutes of Health,
America: Restructuring Business-
Commission, Medicare Prospec-
National Institutes of Health Data
Government Relations for World
tive Payment and the American
Book, 1990, p. 1.
Competitiveness, Harvard
Health Care System: Report to
Business School Press, Boston,
the Congress, June 1990, p. 12.
10. The U.S. Patent and Trademark
MA, 1991, pp. 146-147.
Office does not provide a specific
3. Consumption is calculated by
category that encompasses
taking overall annual production
medical devices. HIMA evalu-
in the U.S., adding import flows
ated those categories that should
into the U.S. during the year and
be considered medical devices for
subtracting exports shipped to
its analysis of these patents.
overseas markets.
11. U.S. Department of Commerce,
4. A listing of the products con-
Patent and Trademark Office,
tained in these SIC groupings is
unpublished data, 1991.
contained in Appendix B.
12. "The Effect of the Medicare
5. Some of the few U.S. industries
Prospective Payment System on
running consistently large trade
the Adoption of New Technol-
surpluses include aerospace
ogy," New England Journal of
products, coal mining, plastics
Medicine, Vol. 321, November
materials and resins, chemicals
16, 1989, pp. 1,378-1,383.
and allied products, and
computers.
56
ABOUT THE HEALTH INDUSTRY
MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION
The Health Industry Manufacturers
Association (HIMA) is a national trade
association representing more than 300
manufacturers of medical devices,
diagnostics, and health care information
systems. HIMA is the principal voice of
the industry, and actively describes the
benefits of innovative medical
technologies to national, local and
international legislative and regulatory
agencies, and to the health care and
business communities. The Association
is dedicated to representing the long-
term interests, concerns, and needs of
the health care technology industry
through education programs that
encourage high quality, cost-effective
health care.
HIMA
HEALTH INDUSTRY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
1030 15TH STREET, N.W., SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-1598
(202) 452-8240
FAX (202) 289-1978