America’s Plasma Contribution to the World: 2025

Launching the Georgetown Blood and Plasma Research Group and the annual state of the U.S. plasma industry report

The Georgetown Blood and Plasma Research Group

The global plasma industry is at a crossroads. Demand for immunoglobulin (just one of the medicines made from plasma) continues to grow at 6-8% per year, but too many countries fail to collect enough to meet their own needs, never mind contribute to the global supply chain.

In the five years since the pandemic, we have seen more legislative and regulatory changes to plasma collection than in the previous two decades combined, from new EU Substances of Human Origin legislation, public-private partnerships in Canada and Egypt, to the opening of commercial collections in Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Despite all of the changes, there is still this constant: The United States continues to supply the vast majority of plasma to meet the needs of patients around the world.

The changes have generated debates about this industry in legislatures, academic journals and conferences, and in the public square. Too often, though, they are missing important pieces of data. That is why I am excited to announce the official launch of the Georgetown Blood and Plasma Research Group. Housed at Georgetown University, the Research Group will promote and facilitate research on the ethics and economics of global supply chains for not only blood plasma, but blood, bone marrow, and other medically-useful substances of human origin. The goal is to collect and disseminate data, encourage philosophical discussion, and promote interdisciplinary research.

This 2025 Annual Report is the first contribution to that mission.

Note: The below numbers and data are my best estimates based on publicly-available data and my knowledge of the industry. Don’t make any financial or medical or any other decisions based on this data. If I’ve made a mistake, please reach out to me so that I can update the numbers.

2025 BY THE NUMBERS

PART I: THE CENTER FOOTPRINT

As of December 31, there are 1,247 plasma collection centers in the United States (including four centers in Puerto Rico).

To put this into perspective: The U.S. is now home to more plasma centers than community colleges (just over 1,000) or Kohl’s department stores (around 1,175). There are almost as many plasma collection centers as Denny’s restaurants (around 1,300).

Here is a monthly breakdown:

Centers vs. Collections

Last year, I predicted 8% growth in the number of centers. That prediction missed the mark significantly. Instead of opening 99 centers, the industry expanded by just 9 centers (representing less than 1% growth).

While real estate expansion slowed down, actual plasma collections did not. I was thinking about square feet when I should have been thinking about liters: Centers may not have grown by 8%, but plasma collections grew by 8.41% from 57.6 to 62.5 million liters.

The driver of this growth was not new centers, but new technology. 2025 marked the widespread adoption of next-generation plasmapheresis machines, including Fresenius Kabi’s Aurora Xi, Terumo’s RIKA, and Haemonetics’ Persona. These devices use personalized nomograms to increase the amount of plasma they collect per donor. They can collect 9-12% more plasma, meaning that 10 centers today can collect about the same volume of plasma that required 11 centers in 2024.

While some centers still use prior-generation machines, the vast majority (including the “Big Five” of CSL, Grifols, Takeda, Octapharma, and Kedrion which together operate 90% of U.S. plasma centers) have rolled out the new machines in 2025.

For 2026, I anticipate this trend to continue, projecting an 11% increase in collections to 69.3 million liters.

PART II: STATE-BY-STATE

As of December 31, the U.S. has a plasma center for 276,198 people. But there are significant regional differences.

Top States by Centers

With 186 centers, Texas is home to the most plasma collection centers, followed by Florida with 92 and California with 65. Rounding out the top-5 are Georgia with 55 and Ohio with 54.

The plasma center landscape looks like this:

Top States Per Capita

The rankings and the map change quite a bit when we adjust for population.

On a per capita basis, only Texas stays in the top-5, though it drops from first to fifth. Taking its place at the top of the per capita rankings is Utah and its 25 centers which give it 7.1 centers per million Utahns. Iowa and Nevada come in second and third, with Idaho in fourth.

Here’s a complete map of plasma center density:

Why the Differences?

Regulatory disparities play a major role. For example, Massachusetts has historically had fewer centers partly due to the requirement for an on-site licensed medical doctor, whereas other states allow for nurse practitioners or EMTs.

Similarly, New Hampshire has zero centers. This is largely due to state rules classifying the simple finger-stick protein test as a full laboratory procedure, triggering complex “Laboratories and Laboratory Services Rules” (He-P 817 and He-P 808) and requiring a credentialed Laboratory Director.

For other states with no centers, like Alaska and Hawaii, the explanation likely lies with the costs of transportation and logistics. It’s expensive to ship relatively little plasma to fractionation, so companies prefer to open in Texas or Florida than have to ship plasma from Hawaii.

State Self-Sufficiency

Since some states have many centers while others have few (and some have none), we can estimate state self-sufficiency. A handful of states, including large states like California, Massachusetts, and New York, do not collect enough plasma to meet their own needs. They rely on other states to make up for the difference. Again, this is due to the higher costs of collecting plasma in these states than in states like Utah and Texas, costs that are the result of historical regulatory differences, but also higher wages.

Here is the 2025 estimate of State self-sufficiency:

PART III: ECONOMIC IMPACT

The $5 billion shadow safety net

The medical contribution of plasma is clear and well-documented. The economic contribution, though, is less often discussed.

The 2025 collection estimates suggest Americans rolled up their sleeves to give plasma more than 75 million times. That means the industry injected more than $4.7 billion dollars into the pockets of American households through donor compensation fees (averaging $65 per donation).

To put this figure in context: That’s nearly 13% more than the entire federal budget for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ($4.1 billion). It’s more than the Community Development Block Grant ($3.3 billion). It is just about 65% of spending on the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Nutrition Program ($7.2 billion).

With the most centers, Texans are the biggest beneficiaries by absolute numbers, with $652 million in donor fees. Utahns, with the highest per capita concentration of centers, collected $86 million. With no commercial centers, residents in New Hampshire and Vermont miss out on these benefits.

The 70,000 job supporter

Beyond the money given in donor compensation, the operational footprint of a plasma center is substantial.

A plasma center will provide employment for roughly 50-60 staff members, and so the 1,247 plasma centers support 62-74,000 jobs directly.

That’s more jobs than the entire U.S. coal-mining industry (40-45,000), or the Social Security Administration which employs about 60,000. It’s about the same number of jobs as the population of Portland, Maine in the Northeast or Santa Fe, New Mexico in the Southeast.

The $10 billion local economic engine

A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the combined economic benefit of the U.S. plasma network in wages, donor compensation, and real estate represents around $9.8 billion in economic benefits. That’s more than the projected budget of the state of Delaware ($6.1 billion), and more than the GDP of the country of Montenegro ($9.4 billion).

The overall impact on American communities is staggering.

The most important impact is measured in lives saved. The U.S. plasma industry saves tens of thousands of American lives and an equal number of patients in the rest of the world. But the U.S. plasma industry also provides tens of thousands of full-time jobs, provides a nearly $5 billion dollar shadow safety net, and generates approximately $10 billion in combined economic benefits to U.S. communities that need it most.

The Economics of a liter of plasma

Headlines often contrast the billions earned by plasma companies with the “pittance” paid to individual donors. This framing suggests exploitation, but it relies on a mathematical mistake: comparing a global aggregate to a single donation.

Instead, the correct apples-to-apples comparison is either aggregate to aggregate, or by looking at the unit economics of a liter of plasma. If we do the former, we get billions for them, and billions for donors.

The unit economics are much more complicated, but we can look at the economics of independent plasma companies. Their business is to sell plasma to fractionators, not to make medicine from the plasma.

The current selling price of a liter of plasma is around $190, give or take $10.

• Donors receive between 30-40% of that revenue, or around $70 (an average donation is 850 - 880 mL, requiring more than one donation to equal a liter).

• The center spends a majority of the remaining revenue on costs like employees, supplies (“softgoods”), testing, and facility overhead.

• The plasma center will pocket around 8-12%, or around $15 in profit.

Far from being an “extractive” industry, the data shows a high-volume, low margin business where the donor is a good, if not primary, financial beneficiary.

PART IV: GLOBAL IMPACT

The U.S. plasma industry does more than save American lives, it provides the material for life-saving therapies for patients around the world.

The 62.5 million liters collected in the U.S. in 2025 represents around 68% of global plasma collections for the manufacture of medicines. About 52% of those collections will end up in medicines to treat American patients, while the remaining 48% will end up treating patients in the rest of the world.

Effectively, Americans donate to help Americans from New Year’s Day until July 9th. Donations after July 9th go to save lives abroad.

The European Union

To put this contribution to the world in perspective:

• France collected 867,000 liters of plasma in 2024, meeting less than a third of its domestic need. The 1.5 million liter shortfall was filled primarily by the U.S. This deficit is equal to the output of about 29 U.S. plasma centers, or the number of centers operating in South Carolina. In effect, the state of South Carolina is donating plasma just to treat French patients. (Interestingly, the French state-owned company LFB already operates six plasma centers in the U.S. To fully close their gap, they would need to expand their U.S-based fleet by another 23 centers).

• Spain had a shortfall of just over 1 million liters of plasma in 2023, or the output of about 20 centers. That’s how many centers there are in Iowa, so Iowans are basically donating for Spanish patients.

• Italy was about 630,000 liters short in 2024, or the equivalent of about 13 centers. Kansas is home to 12 centers, and West Virginia has one. Together, the donors of Kansas and West Virginia roll up their sleeves for Italy.

• Denmark was missing about 130,000 liters of plasma in 2024, or the equivalent of nearly 3 U.S. plasma centers. Wyoming has three centers, so Wyomingites are donating for the Danes.

Overall, the European Union likely had a 2025 shortfall of about 8.7 million liters of plasma, equal to the output of about 175 U.S. plasma centers. That’s roughly the combined output of California, Florida, and New Jersey together.

The CANZUK countries

Here’s a few more for some Commonwealth countries:

• Indiana and its 37 centers collected about the amount of plasma that Canada was missing in 2025;

• Louisiana (25 centers) plus Connecticut (1 center) combined to cover Australia’s needs;

• Nevadans donated plasma for British patients at their 20 centers;

• and New Zealand needed a little less than the plasma collections at one of Maine’s two plasma centers.

CONCLUSION

Every year, the Établissement Français du Sang in France, Canadian Blood Services and Hema-Quebec in Canada, Sanquin in the Netherlands, the two Red Cross societies of Belgium, New Zealand Blood Services, and so on, publicly express gratitude to the people who rolled up their sleeves to save lives in their respective countries.

But they don’t issue a press release thanking the single largest contributor to their national health: The American donor.

The American plasma donor is a silent partner in global public health. They are often caricatured and misunderstood, but as this report demonstrates, they make up the backbone the global plasma supply chain.

As the Georgetown Blood and Plasma Research Group begins its work, our goal is to ensure that policy debates, whether in D.C., Brussels, or Geneva, are grounded not in stigma, but in data. And that data tells a very clear and simple story: The world needs much more plasma, and for the foreseeable future, the world will continue to need and rely on the United States.