New org shows documentaries to prompt conversation
Adolfo Guzman-Lopez
is an arts and general assignment reporter on LAist's Explore LA team.
Published February 2, 2025 5:00 AM
(
Krists Luhaers
/
Unsplash
)
Topline:
IRL Movie Club is a new non-profit organization that partners with theaters across the country to screen documentaries. Their aim is to revive the communal spirit of the film experience.
How does it work? The organization pairs up with theaters for a documentary film screening. There’s no question-and-answer sessions with directors or actors as part of the program — just a simple prompt at the end of the film to turn around and meet your fellow viewers.
Why now: Documentaries have had a hard time finding audiences after the pandemic. And works that probe, question, and hold people and institutions to account are needed now more than ever, proponents say.
What's next: The L.A. area screening of the latest IRL Movie Club takes place at the Art Theater in Long Beach on Sunday at 2 p.m.
Why? Streaming. But after years of bingeing movies at home on Netflix, cinephiles are fighting back.
A conversation is already a political act … we just really want people to meet each other and talk to each other and form a community.
— Annie Roney, founder of IRL Movie Club
“We're trying to build a community of people who want to actually come together in real life, gather around the campfire of a film,” said Annie Roney.
Roney has been in the film business for over three decades as a distributor of documentary films. Last year she founded IRL Movie Club — a national, non-profit organization. (Those initials stand for “in real life.”)
The idea is simple. The organization pairs up with theaters for a documentary film screening. There’s no question-and-answer sessions with directors or actors as part of the program — just a simple prompt at the end of the film to turn around and meet your fellow viewers.
“A conversation is already a political act … we just really want people to meet each other and talk to each other and form a community,” Roney said.
The organization is now showing in 69 theaters across the country from California and Colorado to North Carolina and New York.
“They don't need our films to survive,” Roney said, who’s helped distribute Ken Burns documentaries as well as episodes from the NOVA series.
Documentaries that probe, question, and hold people and institutions to account are needed now more than ever, she said.
Cheap tickets
Movie theater ticket prices have gone up in recent years to an average of $10.78. IRL Movie Club is taking that head on by keeping prices low, $5 per ticket.
The next screening at IRL Movie Club theaters will be The Thinking Game, a documentary about the race to create the smartest artificial intelligence technology ever.
Martha Santana - Chin (left), CEO of L.A. Care, talks with Crystal Rivera, manager of a community
resource center in the Lincoln Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles, which is operated jointly by L.A.
Care and Blue Shield of California. The center offers health and wellness classes and Medicaid
enrollment assistance to local residents. L.A. Care runs the nation’s largest publicly operated health
plan, with over 2.2 million members.
(
Bernard J. Wolfson
/
KFF Health News
)
Topline:
Martha Santana-Chin, CEO of L.A. Care, runs by far the biggest Medi-Cal health plan with more than 2.2 million enrollees, exceeding the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program enrollments in 41 states. As she begins her second year steering L.A. Care, Santana-Chin spoke with KFF News about grappling with federal and state spending cuts that complicate her task of providing health care to the poor and medically vulnerable enrollees in Medicaid.
The impact of cuts: Santana - Chin says that the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act will "devastate the delivery system. The state obviously isn’t going to be able to make up for the shortfalls in federal funding, and over the course of the next several years, funding is going to be less and less, and the people we cover are going to decrease significantly. We are expecting between now and the end of 2028 that we’re going to see 650,000 people drop off the rolls. That’s just L.A. Care."
How will L.A. Care respond to cuts: Santana - Chin says, "we’re very focused on making sure that we are operating as efficiently as we can operate. And we are looking at creative ways to use technology to empower our people to do higher-level work. Mostly supporting our call center agents with smarter technology that helps them answer questions and resolve problems more quickly. Some of it is automating processes on the claims payment side."
When the head of the nation’s largest publicly operated health plan worries about the looming federal cuts to Medicaid, it’s not just her job. It’s personal.
Martha Santana-Chin, the daughter of Mexican immigrants, grew up on Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid, the government-run health care program for people with low incomes and disabilities. Today, she is CEO of L.A. Care, which runs by far the biggest Medi-Cal health plan with more than 2.2 million enrollees, exceeding the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program enrollments in 41 states.
“If it weren’t for safety nets like the Medi-Cal program, I think, many people would be stuck in poverty without an ability to get out,” she said. “For me personally, not having to worry about health care allowed me to really focus on what I needed to focus on, which was my education.”
As she begins her second year steering L.A. Care, Santana-Chin is grappling with federal and state spending cuts that complicate her task of providing health care to the poor and medically vulnerable enrollees in Medicaid. The insurer also provides Affordable Care Act marketplace plans through Covered California.
Santana-Chin warns that the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted last year and also known as HR 1, could result in 650,000 enrollees falling off L.A. Care’s Medi-Cal rolls by the end of 2028. This will strain the plan’s finances as revenues decline. The insurer had revenues of $11.7 billion in the last fiscal year.
HR 1 is expected to cut more than $900 billion from Medicaid over the next 10 years — including $30 billion or more in California, according to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal.
Like other states facing big deficits, California has reduced its Medicaid spending through such steps as freezing new enrollments for immigrants without legal status and reintroducing an asset limit. And that’s before the state reckons with the spending cuts that likely will be required by the withdrawal of so many federal dollars under HR 1.
Santana-Chin oversaw Medi-Cal and Medicare operations for the for-profit insurer Health Net before taking the helm of L.A. Care in January 2025, nearly three years after state regulators fined L.A. Care $55 million over violations they said compromised the health and safety of its members. L.A. Care paid $27 million in penalties to the state and agreed to contribute $28 million to community health projects.
In a wide-ranging interview, Santana-Chin talked to KFF Health News senior correspondent Bernard J. Wolfson about the financial headwinds facing L.A. Care and why she believes health care shouldn’t be restricted based on a person’s immigration status. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Q: You grew up on Medicaid. How has that shaped your views now that you run one of the largest Medicaid plans in the country?
What really motivates me is knowing that many of the people that we’re serving are just like my family. They’ve struggled and have had to have their own children translate things that were very difficult to translate. I remember doing that for my own mother. You know, basic human dignity requires that you have access to health care.
Martha Santana - Chin, CEO of L.A. Care, is the daughter of Mexican immigrants and was a beneficiary of Medi - Cal throughout her childhood. Because of that experience, she says, the concerns of L.A. Care members resonate with her on a personal level.
(
Bernard J. Wolfson
/
KFF Health News
)
Q: Has anything you’ve dealt with at Health Net or L.A. Care reminded you of your childhood experiences in Medi-Cal?
Back then they didn’t cover transportation, and we didn’t have a vehicle. Today, one of the issues we’ll hear from our members is the need to make sure we have trustworthy transportation that shows up on time, where the drivers treat them with respect. Had I had that, had my mother had that, life would have been much easier.
Q: What do you think the impact of HR 1 will be?
It’s going to devastate the delivery system. The state obviously isn’t going to be able to make up for the shortfalls in federal funding, and over the course of the next several years, funding is going to be less and less, and the people we cover are going to decrease significantly. We are expecting between now and the end of 2028 that we’re going to see 650,000 people drop off the rolls. That’s just L.A. Care.
Q: That’s over a quarter of your Medi-Cal enrollment.
Yes, it’s very, very significant. The reductions in payment and the rise in uncompensated care are really going to impact our delivery system. As the delivery system gets destabilized and hospitals and other health care providers are forced to close services or reduce the number of sites they have, it’s going to impact access. And it’s not only going to impact those that lose coverage.
Q: How will L.A. Care respond?
Obviously, we’re going to see a significant drop in revenue. We’re very focused on making sure that we are operating as efficiently as we can operate. And we are looking at creative ways to use technology to empower our people to do higher-level work. Mostly supporting our call center agents with smarter technology that helps them answer questions and resolve problems more quickly. Some of it is automating processes on the claims payment side.
Q: What do you have to say to congressional Republicans who passed HR 1?
We are at a point of inflection in the health care delivery system. And we have to recognize that some of the components of HR 1 will have long-term unintended consequences — maybe they were intended; I’ve got to believe that some of these things are not. There’s probably a need to reconsider some of the things that were passed.
Q: Such as?
Work requirements are an example of something that many people did believe was the right thing to do to be good stewards of the health care dollar. It is very complex and is going to cause people to lose coverage that actually do qualify. It’s unfortunate, and that would be something that I would urge folks to reconsider.
Q: What impact do you expect from California’s decision to freeze Medi-Cal enrollment for immigrants without legal status?
It doesn’t matter what immigration status you are. If you are a human being and you need health care, you’re going to try to access health care wherever you can. That’s going to put a strain on the delivery system if you’re uninsured.
Q: What has L.A. Care done to address the state’s concerns in 2022 that it delayed authorizing care and addressing patient grievances?
There has been quite a bit of investment in the L.A. Care infrastructure over the last several years — our IT platforms, our data. There’s also quite a bit of investment in adding new capacity, adding bandwidth to many of the teams, more folks to help support the work.
Q: How have federal immigration raids in L.A. affected L.A. Care members and the broader community?
It absolutely has had a chilling effect. Families are afraid to come in. They’re not taking their children to get vaccinated. I’ve had numerous providers in emergency departments say that they have experienced a drop in the volume of individuals coming in. One of our case managers was really distraught because there was an individual that decided to forgo serious lifesaving treatment because of fear.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Destiny Torres
is LAist's general assignment and digital equity reporter.
Published January 13, 2026 4:53 PM
Vintage cars destroyed by the Airport Fire.
(
Etienne Laurent
/
AFP via Getty Images
)
Topline:
Cal Fire’s $32 million lawsuit against Orange County over recovery efforts for the Airport Fire is set to face a judge on June 11. The county’s legal counsel claims that the state agency’s lawsuit is legally flawed.
Why now?Cal Fire filed the suit in September. The state agency is looking to recover fire suppression, investigation and administrative costs related to the fire, as well as legal fees.
The background: The Airport Fire burned for 26 days, destroying more than 23,000 acres across Orange and Riverside counties in 2024. As a result, 22 people were injured and 160 structures were damaged. The fire was accidentally sparked by OC Public Works employees, who are also named in Cal Fire’s lawsuit. County attorneys argue that the county is not "vicariously liable for the alleged actions of its employees.”
What else have we learned? Messages between public officials obtained by LAist show that all three work crew supervisors and a manager at OC Public Works were alerted to high fire danger Sept. 9, 2024, hours before their crew accidentally started the fire.
The county’s argument: The county’s lawyers argue the state agency’s complaint is “fatally defective” because the county is not a “person” subject to liability under the health and safety codes that Cal Fire pointed to in its lawsuit. In a statement, the county said it does not comment on pending litigation. Cal Fire did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
Accountability: Moore said hazardous conditions and decisions made before the Palisades Fire erupted a year ago meant “our firefighters never had a chance” to arrest the fire that killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of structures.
Moving forward: Moore emphasized that reform is already in the works. “Things have changed since the Palisades Fire, and we're going to continue making big changes in the Los Angeles Fire Department,” said Moore, who was selected for the LAFD top job in November.
Read on ... for a three detailed takeaways from the interview with the chief.
On taking accountability, Moore said hazardous conditions and decisions made before the Palisades Fire erupted a year ago meant “our firefighters never had a chance” to arrest the fire that killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of structures.
On moving forward, he emphasized that reform is already in the works.
“Things have changed since the Palisades Fire, and we're going to continue making big changes in the Los Angeles Fire Department,” said Moore, who was selected for the LAFD top job by Mayor Karen Bass in November.
Here are three takeaways from the interview, which aired on AirTalk on Tuesday.
Listen
10:12
LAist reporters break down LAFD Chief Moore’s interview
1. Staffing decisions hampered fire response
“We were behind the eight ball. We were trying to play catch up without the resources we needed. We didn't have them pre-deployed there. That's what really caused us to lose the number of homes that we lost.”
— Chief Moore, on AirTalk
The LAFD uses a so-called pre-deployment matrix to set firefighter staffing levels ahead of high-risk weather.
According to the department’s after-action report, however, staffing levels on the day the Palisades Fire began fell short of the LAFD standard for extreme weather conditions. The National Weather Service had warned of low humidity, high winds and dry vegetation, what it calls a “particularly dangerous situation.” It’s the highest level of alert the agency can give.
Despite the high risk, the LAFD report said the decision not to deploy more firefighters in advance was in part made to save money.
Moore said Monday that the department has updated its policies to increase staffing for especially hazardous conditions, but he said he doesn’t believe additional resources would have stopped a fire of the magnitude that leveled the Palisades.
To suppress that kind of fire, he said, the department would need to pre-deploy resources across the city’s vast geography — to places like Baldwin Hills, Franklin Canyon, the Hollywood Hills, the Palisades, Porter Ranch and Sunland-Tujunga.
Moore said the department has already made new policies to call for more resources when the Weather Service issues a “particularly dangerous situation” alert.
2. LAFD is mostly an urban firefighting department
“It's important to note that we are mostly an urban fire department. We needed to do better training as to how to work in this type of an environment.”
— Chief Moore, on AirTalk
Moore referenced a key finding of the after-action report regarding a lack of training in wildland firefighting, which contributed to confusion and struggles to effectively utilize resources during the fire.
Wildland fires pose a number of challenges that are different from what firefighters face in urban environments. Those include the need to coordinate a large number of resources over vast areas, all while dealing with fast-moving flames that can rapidly tear through dry plants and structures.
Listen
0:45
A key takeaway from the LAFD chief's interview on LAist
The department found in its report that fewer firefighters were trained in fighting these wildland fires in recent years and that “leaders struggled to comprehend their roles.”
Some leaders in the department had “limited or no experience in managing an incident of such complexity,” the report said. And some reverted to doing the work of lower positions, leaving high-level decision-making positions unfilled.
“What we're doing now is really furthering that training and reinforcing that education with our firefighters so that they could be better prepared,” Moore said on AirTalk.
3. Changes to the after-action report
“I can tell you this, the core facts and the outcomes did not change. The narrative did not change."
— Chief Moore, on AirTalk
Early versions of the after-action report differed from the version released to the public in October, a fact that was first reported by the Los Angeles Times. The Times also reported that Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, who wrote the report, wouldn’t endorse the final version because of the changes.
“It is now clear that multiple drafts were edited to soften language and reduce explicit criticism of department leadership in that final report,” Moore told the commissioners. “This editing occurred prior to my appointment as fire chief, and I can assure you that nothing of this sort will ever again happen while I am fire chief."
Some changes were small but telling. A section titled “Failures” later became “Primary Challenges.”
Moore told LAist that changes between versions “ made it easier for the public to understand,” but an LAist review found the edits weren’t all surface-level.
In the first version of the report, the department said the decision not to fully pre-deploy all available resources for the particularly dangerous wind event “did not align” with their guidelines for such extreme weather cases. The final version said that the initial response “lacked the appropriate resources,” removing the reference to department standards.
The department also removed some findings that had to do with communications.
One sentence from the initial version of the report said: “Most companies lacked a basic briefing, leader’s intent, communications plan, or updated fire information for more than 36 hours.” That language was removed from the final report.
LAist has asked the Fire Department for clarification about why these assertions were removed but did not receive a response before time of publication.
Libby Rainey
is a general assignment reporter. She covers the news that shapes Los Angeles and how people change the city in return.
Published January 13, 2026 4:33 PM
The LA28 Olympic cauldron is lit during a ceremonial lighting at the Memorial Coliseum in Los Angeles on Jan. 13, ahead of the launch of ticket registration.
(
Frederic J. Brown
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
Fans who want a chance to buy tickets to the 2028 Olympic Games have until March 18 to enter the draw, which opens at 7 a.m. Wednesday.
How much could tickets cost: Olympic organizers also provided more details on ticket prices for the first time. One million tickets will sell for $28 a pop and around a third of tickets will be under $100, according to LA28 Chair Casey Wasserman.
Read on... for more about how to enter for a chance to purchase tickets.
Fans who want a chance to buy tickets to the 2028 Olympic Games have until March 18 to enter the draw, which opens at 7 a.m. Wednesday.
The first round of ticket sales for all fans will launch April 9. The first round will include tickets to the Opening and Closing ceremonies.
Those selected to buy tickets will get an email with a time slot. After the first round, LA28 says there will be rolling ticket drops. Each person who registers will be able to buy a maximum of 12 tickets.
"Fans are encouraged to register today for the best choice of tickets and events, as capacity may be filled or limited in subsequent drops," the private Olympics organizing committee said in a press release.
Registering once will enter applicants into all future draws to purchase Olympic tickets until they've maxed out ticket purchases, according to LA28.
At a press conference Tuesday outside the L.A. Memorial Coliseum, Olympics organizers also provided more details on ticket prices for the first time. One million tickets will sell for $28 a pop and around a third of tickets will be under $100, according to LA28 Chair Casey Wasserman.