A new analysis by Excel Regional Solutions studies venture capital investment into companies working in healthcare device and supply, a sector that has seen nearly $42 billion in investment over the past five years.
From 2021-2025, the metros with the greatest relative concentration contain a mix of regions known for life sciences research, the U.S. EDA-designated MedTech Hub, and cities neighboring larger startup nexuses. Specifically, the Lansing, Michigan and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota metros have the greatest concentration of investment in these companies over the past five years.
Healthcare device investment
According to data from PitchBook, U.S. metropolitan statistical areas experienced 3,882 venture capital deals investing $41.92 billion into approximately 3,600 companies working in healthcare devices and supply (“healthcare device”) from 2021-2025.[1]
Startups in the healthcare device industry make life-changing tools related to dialysis, surgery, hand tremor reduction, and many other medical and wellness areas.
Unsurprisingly, there is tremendous industry investment variability across the 349 metros tracked in this analysis. Only 164 of those metros had at least one deal in the sector from 2021-2025.
The following map shows all metropolitan statistical areas that Excel analyzed for this report by the number of venture capital deals in the sector. Hover over a region (or use the search tool) to find deal count and capital amount.
Among regions with at least one deal from 2021-2025, the median number of deals was 5. The average deal count of 24 reflects the heights of San Francisco-Oakland (383 deals), Boston-Cambridge (378), and another six metros with at least 100 investments.
See the table below for the top performing metros by healthcare devices and supply deal count.
Table 1. U.S. metros by healthcare devices and supply venture capital deal count, 2021-2025.
| Metro | Deals | Capital (Millions) |
|---|---|---|
| San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA | 383 | $8,494 |
| Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH | 378 | $5,477 |
| New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA | 247 | $2,271 |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA | 217 | $3,103 |
| Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI | 207 | $2,454 |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 197 | $3,694 |
| San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA | 153 | $2,399 |
| Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD | 139 | $1,178 |
| Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI | 96 | $594 |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA | 89 | $737 |
Industry concentration among metros
Regional concentrations of economic activity in one industry often yield greater benefits for the area than a comparable level of activity dispersed across multiple sectors.[2] Therefore, we want to see not only the activity counts, but also how strongly healthcare devices and supplies investment stands out in comparison to other regional activity.
Our assessment utilizes location quotients, a standard metric of industry clusters, to assess regional investment focus. This measure looks at the share of activity within the sector and region of interest and compares that level of local focus to the share of activity in this industry for the country.
In short, metros that score highly in this metric see a rate of investment activity within the healthcare devices sector that is more heavily concentrated than for other U.S. metros.
The map, below, depicts metros by healthcare device investment concentration. Regions with low deal counts have been removed, and metros with scores above the typical threshold used to assess industry clusters are scaled in green.
As shown in the map, different regions come to the forefront when concentration is considered. Only Minneapolis-St. Paul is within the top 10 metros for both deal count and location quotient.
The following table shows the top 10 metros by concentration.
Table 2. U.S. metros by healthcare devices and supply venture capital investment concentration, 2021-2025.
| Metro | Location Quotient | Deals |
|---|---|---|
| Lansing-East Lansing, MI | 6.23 | 18 |
| Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI | 5.11 | 207 |
| San Antonio, TX | 3.78 | 27 |
| Baltimore-Towson, MD | 3.75 | 84 |
| Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ | 3.53 | 14 |
| Durham, NC | 3.48 | 65 |
| Memphis, TN-AR-MS | 3.31 | 17 |
| Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI | 3.23 | 15 |
| Worcester, MA | 3.11 | 14 |
| Tucson, AZ | 3.02 | 13 |
Many of these results make intuitive sense. Minneapolis-St. Paul is the site of the U.S. EDA-designated Tech Hub for medical devices. San Antonio and Baltimore are located near concentrations of federal medical research centers (Department of Defense and National Institutes of Health, respectively). Durham is near Research Triangle Park and its concentration of life sciences research. Allentown is near Philadelphia’s life sciences ecosystem (also designated in this field by EDA Tech Hubs), and Worcester likely benefits from proximity to Boston-Cambridge. Lansing and Grand Rapids are not terribly far from each other—nor from the comparable level of total healthcare device investment happening in the Detroit and Ann Arbor metros (18 deals each).
Understanding both raw activity counts and concentration can be useful for regions looking to develop an economic development strategy that leverages comparative industry strengths for further growth. Regions with comparatively high rates of innovation activity within a sector may be more likely to have unique or notably strong assets for the industry—resources that should be defended, improved, and used to recruit relevant companies and researchers—and may be particularly valuable to startups and investors that want to easily find their peers among other innovation activity—San Francisco-Oakland witnessed many healthcare device deals, but these represented less than 3% of its total investment activity over the period.
Next steps
Regions interested in understanding their own areas of investment concentration and how to leverage this activity through an economic development strategy should start with a comparable venture capital data analysis. Several data platforms beyond PitchBook also report these activities. Conversations with local entrepreneurs, investors, and incubator/accelerator managers can also provide invaluable perspective on particular strengths in the region’s startup and investment scene. Once armed with this data, trade associations like SSTI and InBIA have information about how regions across the country have built strategies that lean into industry strengths to generate economic growth.
Excel also can support your region with this process. Contact rittenberg@excelregions.com to develop a tailored research or strategy project.
[1] The PitchBook data platform makes best efforts to track all private investment activity and is the most thorough such resource available. However, the nature of private transactions means that some deals—and particularly more recent deals—may not be included as they occur. PitchBook tends to become more complete over time, as companies and investors disclose historical transactions due to marketing or regulatory purposes, which may result in different conclusions from those printed here.
This article reflects the platform’s data as of January 8, 2026.
This article reports angel investment, seed investment, early-stage and late-stage venture capital deals simply as “venture capital” deals.This is an exclusive category of industry focused, as identified by PitchBook using the following definition: “Companies manufacturing healthcare devices and supplies for consumers and other healthcare organizations.”
[2] For example, see: De Almeida Tavares, M. S., Gohr, C. F., Morioka, S., & Da Cunha, T. R. (2021). Systematic literature review on innovation capabilities in clusters. Innovation & Management Review, 18(2), 192–220. https://doi.org/10.1108/inmr-12-2019-0153.