Households in Texas, the northern Midwest and Pacific Northwest that rely on food stamps will especially feel the impacts of a proposed policy change to limit who qualifies for the federal program, new estimates show .

As the law stands, households that qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs in states with "broad-based categorical eligibility" policies can avoid having to meet the federal income and asset tests and receive additional benefits from the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps.

In July, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutritional Service Agency proposed a rule that would limit the households that receive SNAP benefits to those "who receive substantial, ongoing assistance from TANF," meaning those that have received benefits, whether cash or non-cash – such as childcare – of at least $50 per month for six months or more. The federal agency estimated 3.1 million people – or about 1.7 million households – would lose their SNAP benefits if the rule was implemented, accounting for 9% of total SNAP households.

To estimate the state and demographic impact of the proposed rule, researchers from policy research organization Mathematica used SNAP quality control data for fiscal year 2016 in comparison to the broad-based categorical eligibility policies in place in more than 40 states and U.S. territories.

They found that, while nationally 9% of SNAP households would lose access to these federal benefits, more than 10% of SNAP households in 20 states would lose their eligibility, including 18% in Wisconsin , 17% in North Dakota , and 16% in Delaware , Iowa , Nevada , Oregon and Washington . Meanwhile, the researchers estimated Texas would have the highest number of households slated to lose benefits, at 233,195 – accounting for nearly 390,000 people.

"Eliminating BBCE would mean millions of people currently receiving SNAP benefits would become ineligible. Using available data and microsimulation modeling, we break down the numbers and show the impact in each state for both individuals and households," said Sarah Lauffer, a senior research programmer at Mathematica, in a press release.

Zero households in states such as Virginia , Indiana and Wyoming that do not have BBCE policies would lose SNAP benefits, though some states without the guidelines, including Missouri , would still experience a slight decrease in the number of SNAP households that qualify.

The rule change aims to eliminate a "loophole" that enables people who require minimal TANF benefits to "receive assistance when they clearly don't need it," according to the USDA . The agency estimates the reduction in SNAP benefit payments will save about $3 billion per year.

"Too often, states have misused this flexibility without restraint," U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said in a statement in July. "That is why we are changing the rules, preventing abuse of a critical safety net system, so those who need food assistance the most are the only ones who receive it."

But because states have determined individually the caps for their own categorical eligibility programs or whether they have the programs at all, the impacts of the proposed rule will fall more heavily on states that have more inclusive policies in place, the Mathematica data shows, with nearly 2 million households and 3.6 million people at risk of losing their SNAP benefits.

The USDA said elderly individuals would be the largest group impacted by the rule, with about 13% of all SNAP households with elderly members losing benefits. But, again, the new data shows the percent impacted varies by state; for example, 26% and 34% of households with elderly members will lose benefits in Wisconsin and Texas, respectively.

"This data was released at the national level as part of the federal regulation, but we didn't have a common resource for people to look at how their state specifically was impacted," Lauffer tells U.S. News. "I'm hopeful that states will be able to come in and recognize whether or not their state has an expansive broad-based categorical eligibility program, but also recognize the specific number that might be dropped or might be affected."

The analysis was completed for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Its results show that if the new rule goes into effect, millions of people may be at risk of losing their access to healthy food, says Dr. Rich Besser, president and CEO of the foundation.

"If this new rule goes into effect, millions of people may be at risk for losing access to healthy food," Besser says. "Any barrier that you put up to an assistance program will mean that there are people who would qualify, who are entitled to receive that support, who aren't going to get it maybe because they don't have the time to go through the administrative hurdles to make that happen. It's just one step too far."

Groups in support of the rule change such as conservative public policy think tank Foundation for Government Accountability say it will help those who need the most help by cutting down on the number of households that receive welfare who are above the federal cutoffs as well as those who may be abusing the program.

"Anyone losing food stamp eligibility because of BBCE being eliminated was not an individual that Congress intended the program to cover," Sam Adolphsen, policy director at FGA, said in an email to U.S. News. "This includes millionaires and lottery winners, but will also certainly include those with significant assets or income well above, even double, the federal poverty limit."

"Eliminating the BBCE loophole is not about 'kicking people off' welfare – it's about preserving the program for those it was meant for: truly needy individuals and families without other means to support themselves," he said.

Besser says the impact of the new rule will hurt more than the anecdotal cases of wealthy people misusing the system. The Mathematica data show about 40% – 1.4 million of the 3.6 million – of individuals expected to lose their benefits are living below the poverty line.

"You are seeing people who are just above that poverty line, people who rely on these programs to make sure that their kids don't go hungry," Besser says. "Any barriers that are put in place that make it harder for people to get support will mean that more people in America go hungry."