Incorporating Buy-up Price Loss Coverage into the United States Farm Safety Net - This study evaluates a proposed Price Loss Coverage (PLC) buy-up coverage option to improve price protection for commodity producers. Using 2014–2023 USDA-RMA data, it applies crop insurance principles to model the product and assess its impact. Results show that combining PLC buy-up coverage with current farm-based insurance policies reduces revenue variability by 23% compared to no risk management. While this approach offers better risk mitigation than existing programs, it comes with higher expected government costs per unit of reduced variability.

   Crop Insurance Participation and Cover Crop Use: Evidence from Agricultural Resource Management Survey Data - Historical ambiguity on how cover crop use influences future crop insurance eligibility has been proposed as one explanation for low cover crop adoption rates. However, explicit guidance on cover crop use for crop insurance participants was added in the 2018 Farm Bill. This study uses farm level data from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey to ascertain whether crop insurance participation influenced adoption of cover crops and to what degree that influence persisted after the 2018 Farm Bill. Estimation of a double hurdle model, combined with a control function approach to address endogeneity, suggests statistically and economically significant effects between crop insurance expenditures and cover crop use at the "extensive margin," but no statistically significant effect at the "intensive margin." Estimation on subsets of the data defined by before and after the 2018 Farm Bill suggest that the effect is primarily attributable to participation trends prior to the 2018 Farm Bill. Following the 2018 Farm Bill, no statistically significant effects are observed between cover crop use and crop insurance expenditures.

   Risk Reduction Impacts of Crop Insurance in the United States - The Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) offers insurance policies that reduce the risk of declining farm revenues by increasing mean revenue, decreasing revenue variability, or some combination of both. Using historic data from the FCIP, this paper estimates the effect that different insurance policies have on mean revenue and revenue variability and to what degree indemnity payments are converted into reduced revenue variability. The results suggest that on average, a 1% increase in revenue results in a 2.25% reduction in inter-crop-year revenue variability. Most of this effect is found to be attributed to individual revenue and yield protection plans, which are the most participated-in insurance plans and generally produce simultaneous increases in mean revenue and decreases in revenue variability.

   Utilizing Large-Scale Insurance Datasets to Calibrate Sub-County Level Crop Yields - Crop yields are crucial for research on agricultural risk and productivity but are typically only available at highly aggregated levels. Yield data at more granular levels of observation have the potential to enhance econometric identification and improve statistical power but are typically inaccessible. Crop insurance contracts offered via the US Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) are priced, in part, based on past yields of the farm meaning year-to-year variation in premium rates has the potential to provide insight into how yields vary over time. This paper introduces methods to use observed FCIP rating parameters to calibrate yields for insurance transactions lacking such data. These methods are validated with 148,243 farm-level observations from Kansas for which yields are known. The calibrated yields are applied empirically to examine the impact of asymmetric information in the FCIP via choice of insurance unit structure and the extent to which legislative changes mitigated this effect.

   Actuarial Implications of Prevent Plant Coverage - Within the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP), prevented planting (PP) coverage provides payments for pre-planting costs associated with crops that ultimately cannot be planted due to adverse weather. PP indemnities, which are not considered production losses within the FCIP rating methodology, influence premium rates differently than typical losses. This study utilizes a panel data set consisting of approximately 77,697 county level observations from RMA's summary of business to identify the relationship between the prevalence of prevent plant use and a number of actuarial related outcomes. Overall, we find that increases in the share of total indemnities attributable to PP claims over the preceding 10 years produce generally negligible changes to loss ratios, but can significantly increase loss ratios among subsets of the FCIP that heavily utilize PP coverage (greater than 20% of total indemnities). This suggests that, despite loss ratios being robust to typical rates of PP claims, actuarial performance can degrade when PP payments are high relative to indemnities from all other perils. Additionally, a simulation is conducted in which prevent plant indemnities are counterfactually treated as production losses when pricing FCIP contracts as opposed to current practice of recovering prevent plant costs via a fixed rate load. Doing so suggests significant improvements in loss ratios for crops that have historically had high shares of prevent plant indemnities, however, these improvements come at the expense of higher premiums and reduced demand for crop insurance.

   Flood Risk Perceptions: Accuracy, Determinants, and the Role of Probability Weighting - This study analyzes survey data of US East Coast homeowners to characterize accuracy and determinants of homeowner flood risk (mis)perceptions. Using an array of instruments, we assess subjective risk perceptions and compare them to objective risk estimates. Reduced-form regressions suggest flood experience, worry, and flood zone classification influence relative perceptions of risk. Common probability weighting functions do not fit the divergence in risk perceptions, suggesting that the source of the probability distortions is most likely due to misperceiving the true risk rather than a widespread behavioral heuristic.

   The Crop Insurance Demand Response to Premium Subsidies: Evidence from U.S. Agriculture - Premium subsidies are a common policy tool to promote crop insurance participation in many countries. However, the relationship between subsidies and demand is not entirely obvious given the variation in the use of subsidies and crop insurance participation within the international crop insurance landscape. Focusing on the U.S. Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) demand is modeled as a system of equations representing decisions at the intensive [coverage level] and extensive [net insured acres] margins. The model makes use of an identification strategy that leverages exogenous variation in government-set pricing policy to address potential sources of endogeneity. Applying the model to over one million insurance pool level FCIP observations spanning two decades (2001–2022) suggest an inelastic response at both extensive and intensive margins to changes in producer-paid premium rates with the response to premium rates becoming increasingly more elastic as subsidies decrease. These estimated elasticities are on the low end compared to previous literature, however, significant heterogeneity across commodity, production practices, policy type, and location are observed suggesting subsets of producers are likely to respond to changes in the cost of insurance in different ways.

   Econometric Identification of Crop Insurance Participation - This paper shows how econometric identification can be improved in studies making use of crop insurance participation as either an independent or dependent variable. The paper provides the reader with a succinct overview of how crop insurance contracts are priced and how to use publicly available data to derive a novel composite crop insurance design parameter that emulates existing crop insurance rating parameters using a procedure that is based on current actuarial practices. The derived design parameter performs well at predicting historic crop insurance loss-cost ratios and satisfies the requirements for an instrumental variable for a variety of empirical applications related to crop insurance. Representative empirical examples are presented where it is shown that the proposed instrument has favorable two-staged least squares diagnostic tests and is effective at eliminating endogeneity bias.

   The Crop Insurance Demand Response to the Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus - Previous literature has suggested that ad hoc disaster aid can crowd out demand for residential flood insurance. However, this phenomenon remains relatively unexplored in the agriculture insurance sector. In this paper, we focus on the most recent ad hoc disaster aid program for US agricultural producers, the Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus (WHIP+). Using county-level data on WHIP+ payments, we find support for the program crowding out demand for crop insurance. However, we find the issue to be nuanced, noting that the demand response to WHIP+ payments is subject to heterogeneity across several dimensions including commodity, insurance plan, and coverage level.

   Hedonic Property Prices and Coastal Beach Width - Previous research suggests that coastal housing values capitalize the quality of nearby beaches but note potential problems related to measurement errors and reverse causation due to beach replenishment. We offer the first hedonic analysis of communities not engaged in beach replenishment, obviating concern over reverse causation. Statistical evidence supports hedonic specifications that account for proximity to the shoreline, though marginal willingness to pay (WTP) varies with the specification. Using an instrumental variables approach, we find significant downward bias in ordinary least squares estimates of marginal WTP derived from the sale of vacant lots compared to two-stage least squares estimates on the same vacant lots. Notably, we do not find evidence of the same downward bias in WTP derived from the sale of existing homes.

   Willingness to Pay for Multi-Peril Hazard Insurance - Increasing the number of insured assets in high-risk areas can help reduce the need for federal disaster aid and help communities rebuild quicker following a disaster event. Offering a bundled multi-peril homeowners' insurance product may be one way to do this. Using individual-level survey data, we assess demand for a hypothetical multiperil insurance product and estimate a mean annual willingness to pay of $4,397. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis point to cost being the primary concern for adoption, however, reducing cognitive burden and uncertainty in the claims filing process appear to be important factors that appeal to homeowners.

   Flood Insurance Market Penetration and Expectations of Disaster Assistance - Concern over resilience to natural disasters often focuses on moral hazard; expectations of disaster assistance may lead households in hazard-prone communities to forego insurance. This has been dubbed "charity hazard" in the literature on natural disasters. We examine flood insurance uptake using household level survey data and employ instrumental variables (related to local history of aid distribution and political economy) to address endogeneity of individual expectations of eligibility for disaster assistance. To avoid potential problems with reverse causation, we drop any households that could have received payments in the past (triggering mandatory flood insurance purchase). We find coastal households that exhibit positive expectations of disaster aid eligibility are 25 to 42 percent less likely to hold flood insurance. We estimate that charity hazard could be responsible for 817,000 uninsured homes in the United States corresponding to a loss of $526 million in forgone annual revenue for the National Flood Insurance Program.

   How Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Outdoor Recreation in the U.S.? A Revealed Preference Approach - This study examines the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor recreation trips and values using revealed preference data in the context of travel cost method. Demand models are estimated using data on pre- and postpandemic trips reported in a nationwide survey of recreation participants. The models incorporate related subjective risk perceptions as postpandemic measures of site quality and account for household-level factors, pre-existing conditions, and risk tolerance. Our results suggest that the pandemic had negative effects on recreation visits and values, with risk-tolerant households and households with pre-existing conditions taking more trips.

   Risk Perceptions and Flood Insurance: Insights from Homeowners on the Georgia Coast - Scholars highlight a wide array of factors that can influence individual decision-making under risk. Utilizing survey data, we explore many potential factors that affect risk perception and protective behaviors. Our focus is on coastal Georgia, which has lower historical risk relative to the rest of the Southeast U.S., and which many people perceive as relatively safe, but was recently adversely affected by two major storms. The results indicate a majority of coastal residents expect coastal storms and other hazards to be worse in the future. The regression results suggest perceived damages, risk tolerance, wealth exposure, and flood zone are robust determinants of flood insurance purchase. Other factors, like flood zone awareness and attitudes towards community risk management initiatives—like shoreline armoring, beach replenishment, and coastal retreat—are also indicated to have a high correlation with flood insurance purchase.

   Food Waste and Food Retail Density - This paper examines the relationship between food retail density and municipal solid waste. We test for correlations between the volume of solid waste and the number of food-at-home retailers (e.g., grocery stores) and food-away-from-home retailers (e.g., restaurants) at the county level in the state of Mississippi over 2007–2012. Since food scraps comprise the largest share of post-recycling municipal solid waste in the United States, we control for the overall level of economic activity to account for other sources of solid waste, as well as demographic factors, county, and time effects. We find that increases in food-at-home retailer density are negatively correlated with solid waste volume. Conversely, we find that increases in the number of food-away-from-home retailers lead to more waste. While we do not explicitly investigate the mechanisms, we discuss possible avenues such as increased food access in the case of food at home, and increased portion sizes and substitutability in the case of food away from home.

   Estimated Additional Base Acres Under OBBBA for Crop Year 2026 - The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) permits the first net expansion of base acres since 2002. This paper estimates the magnitude and distribution of additional base acres under OBBBA using USDA Farm Service Agency crop acreage data. Under the main scenario incorporating recent Federal Register implementation guidance, approximately 39.9 million acres would be eligible for addition, which would be prorated down to the 30 million acre statutory cap. Corn receives the largest allocation (10.2 million acres), followed by soybeans (8.3 million) and wheat (7.1 million). North Dakota, Texas, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Missouri lead among states. Using estimated 2025 crop year payment rates, these additional base acres could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in additional ARC/PLC payments, with corn alone valued at approximately $414–634 million. Estimation of alternative scenarios reveals that estimates are particularly sensitive to the treatment of forage crops; excluding forage from eligible non-covered commodities reduces estimated additional base acres from 30 million to 18.6 million. Under the assumption that the main scenario is representative of how the update will be implemented, this suggests additional base acres will be concentrated in areas with high forage crop production.

   Prevented Planting Buy-Up Elimination and What the Evidence Indicates about Adoption, Actuarial Performance, and Pre-Planting Risk Management Options for Farmers - This white paper synthesizes a series of Agricultural Risk Policy Center (ARPC) analyses on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Risk Management Agency’s Expanding Access to Risk Protection (EARP) rule, finalized in November 2025, which eliminates the remaining 5% prevented planting (PP) buy-up option beginning with the 2027 crop year. Using policy and claim-level evidence from 2011–2024 for major commodities, the results show no indication that PP buy-up coverage compromised actuarial performance: loss ratios for the buy-up component and base-only coverage are similar and below unity, implying premiums were broadly sufficient to cover indemnities. The analysis also documents that buy-up-related indemnities are geographically concentrated, with the largest at-risk amounts in corn and soybeans in the Upper Midwest and rice in Arkansas and California. Eliminating the buy-up generates meaningful uncompensated losses for indemnified producers, approximately $18–26 per corn acre and $14–21 per soybean acre absent ad-hoc relief, with recent disaster programs providing only partial and uncertain offsets. Finally, we show that replacing lost PP protection through higher overall coverage is costly and often infeasible near the 85% coverage ceiling, reducing producer flexibility and increasing exposure to planting-season risk. The structure and wording closely follow the logic and framing of the original ARPC analyses; to improve readability, underlying analyses are not cited repeatedly, and the paper should be interpreted as a synthesis of existing ARPC research rather than a standalone original empirical study.

   Analysis of the U.S. Sugar Safety Net and Potential Sugar Beet Revenue Protection Program - This report examines the policy and market landscape shaping risk management in the U.S. sugar sector, with a focus on the potential introduction of Revenue Protection (RP) crop insurance for sugar beets under the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP). It analyzes the relative price volatility of sugar compared to other major crops, evaluates historical adoption patterns of yield versus revenue protection plans, and projects the fiscal implications of introducing RP coverage. The findings provide insights into likely shifts in insurance participation and cost outcomes under alternative adoption scenarios.

   U.S. Agricultural Policy Review, 2023 - The 2023 edition of the annual U.S. Agricultural Policy Review series documenting developments in U.S. Federal policies related to production agriculture, agrofood value chains, and food and nutrition assistance. The authors examine developments including the passage of new legislation, implementation of new programs, and revisions to existing programs.

   Potential Budgetary Impacts of Climate Change on the Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage Insurance Plan - More frequent and severe weather events are projected with climate change, which could affect forage commodities and livestock producers. The U.S. Federal Government offers programs to help livestock producers mitigate the financial impacts of these adverse events. One of these programs is The Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage (PRF) insurance plan, offered through the USDA Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP). This report provides projected changes to precipitation (using climate estimates), biomass (using a livestock rangeland model), and future participation in PRF to estimate future payments and costs associated with the PRF program.

   Recent Developments in Ad Hoc Assistance Programs for Agricultural Producers - Ad hoc assistance programs that specifically target agricultural producers are occasionally authorized to provide support in the event of natural disasters or unprecedented market conditions. Assistance delivered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through these programs grew substantially from 2017 to 2021 but then declined in 2022. This report provides an overview of developments in ad hoc assistance programs for agricultural producers implemented between 2017 and 2022, including the event that prompted each program, payment eligibility conditions and calculations, and other program design features as well as an analysis of trends in budgetary expenditures.

   Federal Programs for Agricultural Risk Management - This report provides a broad overview of the Federal programs that are designed to help agricultural producers manage risks to income or profitability caused by natural and economic forces. It covers crop insurance programs, price support programs, and other risk management tools available to farmers.

   U.S. Agricultural Policy Review, 2022 - The 2022 edition of the annual U.S. Agricultural Policy Review series providing a comprehensive overview of agricultural policy developments that took place in 2022, including new legislation, program implementations, and policy revisions.

   U.S. Agricultural Policy Review, 2021 - The 2021 edition of the annual U.S. Agricultural Policy Review series documenting an overview of agricultural policy developments that took place in 2021.

   Factors Influencing Prevented Planting for Spring Wheat - A special article in the ERS September 2022 wheat outlook report examining factors that influence prevented planting decisions for spring wheat producers.

   The Actuarial Performance of Prevented Planting Buy-Up Coverage - On November 28, 2025, the USDA Risk Management Agency finalized the elimination of the 5% prevented planting (PP) buy-up option. Using policy-level data from 2011–2024, this brief examines whether buy-up coverage historically degraded the actuarial performance of the Federal Crop Insurance Program. While theory suggest that optional PP coverage could lead to adverse selection, national-level results show that buy-up loss ratios (0.818) were lower than base coverage (0.866). These findings suggest that buy-up premiums adequately covered additional indemnities.

   Prevented Planting Buy-Up Coverage: Payments and Policy Changes - Prevented planting (PP) coverage has historically allowed crop insurance participants to receive indemnities when weather or other insured causes prevent timely planting, with an optional buy-up provision increasing payments by covering a larger share of pre-planting costs. On November 28, 2025, the USDA Risk Management Agency eliminated the 5 percent prevented planting buy-up option from all crop insurance policies. Using USDA Risk Management Agency cause-of-loss data, we document the distribution of PP buy-up indemnities across major crops and states and estimate the portion of recent indemnities that is “at risk” following the removal of the buy-up option. Results show that corn and rice account for the largest share of buy-up-related indemnities, with significant geographic concentration in the Dakotas, Arkansas, and California. A counterfactual analysis of the earlier reduction in buy-up coverage from 10 percent to 5 percent in 2018 demonstrates that prior policy changes already resulted in substantial foregone indemnities, particularly for corn and rice. Together, these findings provide context for the scale and distributional consequences of eliminating prevented planting buy-up coverage and inform expectations regarding future producer payments and program expenditures.

   2025 Farm Bridge Assistance Program Payment Guesstimate Rates - In December 2025, the USDA announced up to $11 billion in Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) payments to provide temporary support to producers facing market disruptions and increased production costs during the 2025 crop year. This analysis provides a descriptive projection of potential FBA payment rates across major field crops, based on the program structure outlined by USDA and drawing on the methodology used in the 2024 Emergency Commodity Assistance Program. Using national yield, price, and cost-of-production data, we model per-acre economic losses and corresponding FBA payment rates under alternative assumptions regarding yields, prices, and payment constraints. Results show large variations in per-acre payment rates across commodities, with cotton and rice receiving the highest per-acre payments. The analysis also illustrates how changes in yield realizations, price projections, and the application of PLC minimum payment provisions affect the distribution of payments. All estimates are projections intended to inform understanding of potential outcomes prior to USDA’s release of official FBA payment rates.

   Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage (PRF) Insurance Expansion and Emerging Limits to Growth - Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage (PRF) insurance has become one of the fastest-growing components of the Federal Crop Insurance Program, expanding rapidly as producers seek protection against rainfall-driven forage losses. Unlike traditional crop insurance, PRF relies on a precipitation index rather than measured yields, making it well suited for continuously grazed systems. This brief examines the national expansion of PRF from 2016 through 2025, documenting trends in insured acres, liabilities, and geographic penetration. Enrollment increased from roughly 52 million acres in 2016 to more than 316 million acres by 2025, with insured liabilities rising nearly fivefold. Growth was concentrated in western and plains states where forage-based livestock systems dominate, while participation remains limited in the Midwest, Southeast, and Northeast. Recent slowing in enrollment growth and near-complete penetration in several western states suggest the program may be approaching saturation in its core regions, shifting future growth prospects toward underrepresented areas and producer awareness rather than acreage expansion.

   Evolution of U.S. Federal Crop-Insurance Plans - Producers participating in the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) must choose among insurance plans, coverage levels, and unit structures that jointly shape the risk protection provided by their policy. This brief examines the historical evolution of crop insurance plan offerings, participation patterns, and actuarial performance from 1989 through 2024. Using national liability, acreage, and long-run loss ratios, we document how the FCIP policy menu expanded from eight active plans in 1989 to more than thirty-five plans today, even as insured liability became increasingly concentrated. Participation has shifted decisively from yield-only protection toward revenue-based COMBO plans, particularly Revenue Protection, which now dominates program exposure. Area- and index-based plans offer lower premiums but face persistent basis risk and limited adoption, while supplemental endorsements increasingly layer coverage onto core policies. Livestock and forage plans have expanded rapidly in recent years. Despite broad plan availability, fiscal exposure remains concentrated, suggesting that incremental refinement of pricing and design, rather than further proliferation, may strengthen the long-run stability of the FCIP portfolio.

   What Repeated Crop Insurance Premium Interest Deferrals Mean for Farmers - Premium interest deferrals are a lesser-known financial support mechanism within the U.S. Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP), temporarily waiving interest charges on unpaid producer premiums during disaster years. Originally intended as exceptional relief, these deferrals have become increasingly routine, occurring in eight of the past thirteen years and consecutively from 2019 to 2024. This study examines whether repeated deferrals have altered farmers’ crop insurance demand by shaping expectations of continued payment flexibility. Exploiting differences in premium billing schedules between spring and winter wheat, we implement an instrumented two-way fixed effects framework using county-level crop insurance data from 2015–2023. The results indicate that interest deferrals are associated with a 1.6% increase in coverage levels and a 7.4% expansion in insured acreage for spring wheat, with effects strengthening over successive deferral announcements. These findings suggest that farmers may increasingly view deferrals as a standard feature of the FCIP rather than temporary disaster relief. While deferrals provide short-term liquidity benefits, their repeated use may generate longer-term behavioral responses and increase implicit federal subsidy exposure. Policy reforms that better align premium billing with post-harvest cash flows may offer a more sustainable alternative.

   OBBB Premium Subsidy Increases in Basic, Optional, and Enterprise Units - The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) introduces the first significant increase in crop insurance premium subsidy rates since 2000. While the legislation explicitly raises subsidies for Basic and Optional Units by 3–5 percentage points, corresponding increase in Enterprise Unit (EU) subsidies are likely due to statutory parity requirements in the Federal Crop Insurance Act. Estimates suggest these adjustments could raise EU subsidies by several percentage points at higher coverage levels. The total increase in premium support from OBBB is estimated to be approximately $460 million in additional annual benefits to U.S. producers.

   Crop Insurance Generally Improves Farm Revenues, But Effects Vary By Policy Type -  Crop insurance is widely used to stabilize farm income, yet its effectiveness varies across policy designs. This study evaluates how different Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) policies affect both average farm revenue and year-to-year revenue volatility. Using FCIP records for 11 major crops from 2011-2022, we simulate net indemnities, defined as indemnities minus producer-paid premiums, for 51 policy and coverage combinations and compare outcomes to an uninsured baseline. We find that crop insurance generally improves farm revenues and reduces income variability: on average, a 1 percent increase in net revenue from insurance is associated with a 2.25 percent reduction in interannual revenue volatility. This stabilizing effect is strongest for policies based on verified on-farm outcomes, such as Yield Protection, Actual Production History, and Revenue Protection, which also account for most program participation. In contrast, index-based policies tend to increase revenue variability due to basis risk, as indemnities do not always align with individual farm losses.