I thought I had read somewhere that the fringe receives more than they put in and the corn belt puts in more than they receive. Being too lazy to track down the source of the info I wasn't sure I remembered correctly, I decided to ask Grok instead:

https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_cd73adaa-b273-4f77-bd1c-9c246fd66043

For those who don't want to click the link my question was:

"Is there a map of USA counties showing how much each puts into crop insurance vs how much they get out? For example, in the heart of the corn belt, do producers usually pay more in crop insurance premiums over 10 or 20 or 30 years than they get out of it or do they usually get more out of it than they put in? What about in NW KS? What about SE CO?"

Grok's answer was as follows (I'm also posting the image Grok shared down below):

No single interactive map directly compares producer-paid crop insurance premiums to indemnities received (payouts) by U.S. county over long periods like 10–30 years. However, detailed data from USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) allow calculations of these metrics, and reports from university extension services (e.g., farmdoc daily at University of Illinois, AgManager at Kansas State) produce county-level maps of closely related indicators, such as loss ratios (indemnities divided by total premiums, including government-subsidized portion) or net indemnities (indemnities minus producer-paid premiums).

The best available visualization is this county-level map of average crop insurance loss ratios from 2014–2023:

(image uploaded below)


Darker green areas have lower loss ratios (fewer payouts relative to premiums), while redder areas have higher ratios (more payouts). Patterns hold over longer periods, with higher ratios often in drier, riskier regions.

### Key Context on Producer Costs vs. Benefits
Federal crop insurance is heavily subsidized: taxpayers cover ~60–65% of total premiums on average, so producers pay only ~35–40%. The program targets a long-term loss ratio around 1.0 nationally (indemnities ≈ total premiums), but it varies by region.

Over 10–30 years, producers almost always receive **more in indemnities than they pay in premiums** (net positive), primarily due to the subsidy. The net benefit approximates the subsidy amount in low-loss areas, plus extra in high-loss areas when loss ratios exceed 1.0.

### Heart of the Corn Belt (e.g., Central Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska)
These areas show consistently low loss ratios (often 0.6–0.9 long-term). Producers usually get **more out than they put in** over 10–20–30 years, but the net benefit is modest—mostly from the premium subsidy, with fewer large indemnity payouts due to reliable yields and less severe weather risks.

### Northwest Kansas
This drier region experiences frequent drought and hail, leading to higher loss ratios (often >1.0 in many years, higher averages). Producers usually get **substantially more out than they put in** over long periods, with indemnities significantly exceeding their premiums.

### Southeast Colorado
Similar to NW Kansas (high plains, irrigation-dependent in parts, drought-prone), it has elevated loss ratios. Producers typically get **much more out than put in**, benefiting from both the subsidy and more frequent/higher indemnity payments.

For raw data to explore further:
- USDA RMA Summary of Business tool (query by county/year for premiums, subsidies, indemnities).
- EWG's crop insurance database (cumulative indemnities and subsidies by county, 1995–present).

If you'd like maps for specific years or more details on a particular county, let me know!

(Crop_Insurance_Return_Map (full).jpg)

Crop_Insurance_Return_Map (full).jpg (127KB - 7 downloads)