The crop insurance industry is "selling a product that farmers have to be subsidized to buy," said Babcock. "It does provide value to farmers but they wouldn't find the value high enough to buy it if they had to pay for it with their own money rather than taxpayers' money."

Babcock has developed crop insurance policies and worked as a consultant for the USDA Risk Management Agency, the federal agency that oversees crop insurance. Recently, Babcock, in accordance with non-profit Environmental Working Group, released a report called "The Revenue Insurance Boondoggle: Taxpayer-paid windfall for industry."

But revenue-based insurance provides an important security for farmers, according to National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson. Because the cost of doing business goes up with rising crop prices -- fertilizer, seed, and equipment manufacturers know they can take advantage of the market -- a sudden drop in the market means costs could exceed revenue.

And although he is in favor of government support for the industry, Johnson said changes are necessary but will be difficult to make.

"There needs to be fundamental reforms to how crop insurance is funded over the longer term, but there is really not much political appetite for doing that right now because crop insurance products are very popular. They are understood to be very necessary for farmers."

THERE WHEN YOU DON'T NEED IT, NOT WHEN YOU DO

"In a way, it's backwards how historically we've tried to run safety net programs," said Johnson. "As a general rule, one would think when commodity prices are high -- particularly when yields are strong -- the need for the farmers should fall. The way crop insurance is currently structured, that is not what happens. Because of all these revenue products, taxpayer costs go up when the market goes up. It's a difficult issue to sell to the public. It is a difficult issue to resolve."

As prices in the market rise, so do premiums to insure the increasingly expensive crops. Without caps to the program, taxpayer contributions can go up as far as prices will take them.

"Under today's policy, you can farm a county, you can farm two counties and we will still pay 100 percent of that subsidy amount. It's insane policy," said Ferd Hoefner, policy director for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

In 2000, the government paid $1.35 billion to subsidize premiums. That figure rose to more than $7 billion in 2011 -- a result of more acreage covered and higher market prices.

Placing a cap on premium subsidies can be difficult, said Collins, who chaired the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation for seven years and who now works for the trade association National Crop Insurance Services. "You are trying to insure stability of businesses. Saying only a certain portion of the value of your business can be insured wouldn't make much sense to me."