The bill amends the Federal Crop Insurance Act to increase federal premium support for individual farm-based revenue protection and yield protection plans when producers elect enterprise units or whole‑farm units, and to change the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) by tightening thresholds and increasing the SCO premium subsidy. It also directs the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) to study whether SCO can be offered at a sub‑county scale for very large counties.
This matters because the changes alter the distribution of federal premium support (raising the government share for specific unit elections and for SCO), change the design parameters for county‑level supplemental coverage, and require the FCIC to evaluate more granular coverage options—each step with consequences for program costs, participation patterns, and actuarial soundness.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new statutory paragraph that requires the FCIC to apply higher ‘‘applicable factors’’—effectively increasing the government’s share of premium—for enterprise‑unit and whole‑farm elections (77% and 68% for two specified coverage bands). It raises the SCO premium subsidy from 65% to 80% and adjusts two SCO thresholds in statute. It also mandates a study (and report) on offering SCO at sub‑county scales in counties larger than 1,400 square miles.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include farmers using enterprise or whole‑farm units (often diversified or larger operations), users of the Supplemental Coverage Option in eligible counties, the Risk Management Agency/FCIC charged with administration, private insurance companies and approved insurance providers that deliver policies and loss adjustment, and federal budget stakeholders who fund the subsidies.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts program subsidy toward particular unit elections and SCO users, which can change enrollment incentives and loss experience. Policy changes and the study could lead to more granular coverage options, but they also raise questions about fiscal exposure, actuarial rates, and the complexity of implementing sub‑county products.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes three linked changes to the Federal Crop Insurance Act. First, it adds a new paragraph to Section 508(e) directing the FCIC to pay a larger share of premiums when a producer chooses an individual farm‑based revenue‑protection or yield‑protection policy and elects enterprise units or whole‑farm units.
The statutory language replaces the usual applicable factors for two coverage bands with fixed percentages—77 percent for one band and 68 percent for the other—so the government portion of the premium increases for those unit choices.
Second, the bill tightens two numeric thresholds in the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) provision and raises the SCO premium subsidy rate from 65 percent to 80 percent. In practice this increases the federal subsidy for SCO purchases and slightly alters the coverage triggers embedded in SCO’s statutory design, changing the effective protection producers receive and the subsidy the FCIC pays.Third, the bill requires FCIC to study the feasibility of offering SCO at levels between individual and county coverage for counties larger than 1,400 square miles.
The study must examine whether a sub‑county product can be offered in large counties and report findings and recommendations to the Agriculture committees within one year. That study is meant to explore geographic granularity where countywide SCO may not fit heterogeneous large counties.Taken together, the changes encourage use of enterprise and whole‑farm unit elections by making those options relatively cheaper to farmers, increase federal support for SCO purchases, and direct the agency to explore more targeted coverage geography for very large counties.
Each change affects subsidy flows, participation incentives, and the administrative and actuarial work RMA must perform.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts a new paragraph (to 7 U.S.C. 1508(e)) that mandates the FCIC apply an ‘‘applicable factor’’ of 77% for one coverage band and 68% for another when a producer elects enterprise units or whole‑farm units for individual farm‑based revenue or yield plans.
It amends Section 508(c)(4)(C) by replacing two numeric thresholds—changing ‘‘14’’ to ‘‘10’’ in clause (ii) and ‘‘86’’ to ‘‘90’’ in clause (iii)(I)—thereby altering statutory SCO parameters.
The SCO premium subsidy in Section 508(e)(2)(H)(i) increases from 65% to 80%, raising the federal share of SCO premium support.
The bill adds a subsection to Section 522(c) requiring FCIC to study whether SCO can be offered at a scale between individual and county in counties larger than 1,400 square miles and to deliver a report with findings and recommendations within one year.
All substantive changes amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act: the premium‑support rule in Section 508(e), SCO coverage/subsidy language in Section 508(c) and (e), and a new study mandate in Section 522(c).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act’s name: ‘‘Federal Agriculture Risk Management Enhancement and Resilience Act’’ or the ‘‘FARMER Act.’
Higher premium support for enterprise and whole‑farm unit elections
This provision adds a new paragraph that overrides some of the statutory limitations in paragraph (2) by specifying two fixed ‘‘applicable factors’’ when certain individual farm‑based revenue‑protection or yield‑protection plans are written on enterprise units or whole‑farm units. Practically, those fixed factors (77% and 68%) increase the government’s portion of the premium for those unit elections, reducing the out‑of‑pocket premium cost for participating producers. Implementation will require RMA to adjust premium‑allocation tables and reprice policies for affected coverage levels; it also changes the mix of subsidy dollars across unit structures, which matters for actuarial calculations and reserve planning.
Adjusts SCO numeric thresholds
The bill edits two numbers in the SCO statutory clause—reducing one numeric threshold from 14 to 10 and increasing another from 86 to 90. Those edits change SCO’s statutory trigger points and thus the effective coverage band available under the program. The textual change is technical but can affect the level at which SCO begins to pay and how it stacks with underlying crop insurance policies, potentially shifting the amount of protected loss and program payout profiles in eligible counties.
Raises the SCO premium subsidy rate
This clause increases the statutory subsidy rate that FCIC pays toward SCO premiums from 65% to 80%. That is a straightforward increase in federal cost share for producers who buy SCO, which will lower farmers’ premiums and likely increase SCO uptake. RMA will need to rework premium tables and budget projections to reflect the higher subsidy rate.
Mandates a feasibility study and report on sub‑county SCO in very large counties
The bill directs FCIC to study, or contract for a study, on whether SCO can be modified to provide coverage at scales larger than individual but smaller than county for counties exceeding 1,400 square miles. The statute requires FCIC to report results and recommendations to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees within one year of enactment. The study is intended to surface implementation issues—data needs, loss‑adjustment procedures, actuarial treatment, and administrative burden—before the agency makes any regulatory or program changes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Producers electing enterprise or whole‑farm units: They receive a larger federal share of premiums (lowering their net premium) for individual farm‑based revenue and yield plans, improving affordability for diversified and multi‑site operations that use those unit options.
- Producers buying SCO: Raising the SCO subsidy from 65% to 80% reduces their premium cost and makes supplemental county coverage more accessible, particularly for producers in counties where SCO is available.
- Large, diversified farms in very large counties: If the FCIC finds sub‑county SCO feasible and it is later implemented, producers in heterogeneous, expansive counties could get more geographically targeted protection that better matches on‑farm risk.
- Approved insurance providers and private delivery partners: Higher subsidy and (potentially) increased program participation should stabilize and potentially expand the book of business for carriers that sell and service these policies, increasing premium volume.
- Rural lenders and agribusinesses: Broader uptake of enterprise/whole‑farm coverage and subsidized SCO reduces borrower default risk and can strengthen collateral values, which benefits lenders and input suppliers.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal budget/taxpayers: Increasing applicable factors for certain unit elections and raising the SCO subsidy increases FCIC outlays and program subsidy cost; those costs fall on federal budget resources or require offsetting appropriations.
- Risk Management Agency / FCIC: The agency must update premium schedules, recalculate actuarial rates, adjust reinsurance calculations and delivery systems, and carry out a study—adding administrative and technical workload.
- Actuarial soundness of the crop insurance program: Greater subsidies concentrated on certain unit elections and SCO purchases can alter loss ratios and require rate‑making adjustments, which private companies, FCIC reinsurance, and ultimately taxpayers may absorb.
- Smaller or specialty producers who do not use enterprise/whole‑farm units: Because the bill targets enterprise and whole‑farm elections, smaller producers who rely on single‑unit or basic coverage may receive relatively less incremental benefit, potentially widening support gaps.
- States and local governments (indirectly): If federal subsidy increases raise program costs and require later cutbacks or redesign, state extension programs and local farm support initiatives may face uncertainty and shifting risk management landscapes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between improving farm resilience by making broader, more tailored insurance options affordable (which supports producers and reduces business failure risk) and preserving the crop insurance program’s fiscal and actuarial integrity (which requires controlling subsidy growth, preventing adverse selection and moral hazard, and keeping rates actuarially sound). The bill moves toward affordability and granularity but leaves open how to pay for and sustain those gains without undermining program solvency.
The bill tilts subsidy dollars toward producers who elect enterprise or whole‑farm units and toward buyers of SCO, but it does not include offsetting revenue or clear actuarial adjustments. That creates immediate fiscal exposure: higher subsidy rates translate into larger FCIC outlays unless Congress provides additional appropriations or RMA adjusts other program rates.
Increased subsidies also change enrollment incentives and selection effects—producers who can organize enterprise or whole‑farm units may be more likely to enroll, concentrating lower‑cost per‑acre risks or, conversely, attracting higher‑risk acreage into subsidized coverage depending on farm structures.
Operationally, the study mandate acknowledges the limits of countywide SCO in very large counties, but delivering sub‑county coverage is nontrivial. RMA will need finer spatial loss data, revised loss‑adjustment protocols, updated actuarial models, and changes to policy documents and IT systems.
A one‑year reporting deadline pressures the agency to produce meaningful recommendations quickly; translating those into a new product would require a separate rulemaking and probable actuarial recalibration. Finally, the bill raises distributional questions: enterprise and whole‑farm units often advantage larger or more diversified operators, so the subsidy shift could exacerbate perceived inequities in program support.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.