Jekyll2026-05-22T11:51:05-04:00https://alex-hoagland.github.io/feed.xmlAlex HoaglandAssistant Professor of Health Economics, University of Toronto IHPMEAlex Hoaglandalexander.hoagland@utoronto.caMore Health Care, More Problems: When Going to the Doctor Gives You Headaches2020-08-17T00:00:00-04:002020-08-17T00:00:00-04:00https://alex-hoagland.github.io/posts/2020/08/BU-IHSIPHere you can read a blog post highlighting my work on preventive care and the ACA, joint with Paul Shafer.

]]>Alex Hoaglandalexander.hoagland@utoronto.caA Creative Writing Exercise: Math and Reality2019-05-27T00:00:00-04:002019-05-27T00:00:00-04:00https://alex-hoagland.github.io/posts/2019/05/thoughts-on-mathEvery so often I like to try my hand at creative writing (check out my CV for some examples). This is especially true when I’m in the bogged down stage of coding and re-coding analysis for too many research projects, and miss writing.

So, here is a recent essay of mine, born as a way to procrastinate my current projects. Sorry, advisors!

]]>Alex Hoaglandalexander.hoagland@utoronto.caPolitical Philosophy Article: Community Building2018-04-10T00:00:00-04:002018-04-10T00:00:00-04:00https://alex-hoagland.github.io/posts/2018/04/community-buildingCheck out my article on community building here.

Quick Summary

All economists should study political philosophy. If you don’t believe me, this article makes a strong case for it. Fundamentally, our discipline deals with questions about how people engage with each other — through markets as well as in more everyday interactions ranging from doctors treating their patients to governments providing public goods. Therefore, we frequently (if obliviously) engage with important questions about engaging with the other and our ethical obligations to our community members.

Recently, I had the opportunity to write and publish a piece on connecting with people you disagree with, and how that should affect our decision making. The article explores under what conditions you classify someone as an epistemic peer, or someone whose opinion you are obligated to view as credible. This is vital to how we communicate about our own research — under what conditions do we accept someone’s work as legitimate, especially when it contradicts our priors?

You can read the full article (and some other interesting political philosophy pieces) here. I’d welcome any thoughts or comments you have on the topic.

]]>Alex Hoaglandalexander.hoagland@utoronto.ca