Düsseldorf cuts funding for STAY! Medinetz: Less money for emergency fund and clearing center – Concerns about surgeries and ongoing care

Ahead of the 2026 budget deliberations in the Düsseldorf city council, uncertainty is growing at STAY! Medinetz, a long-established service for people without health insurance and without regular residency status. The draft allocates only 160,000 euros for the area from which the work is financed. The association expects that this would have a direct impact on treatments, medications, and even surgeries – and that the clearing center will come under staffing pressure.

The city council will discuss the 2026 budget on Thursday, March 19. Numerous cuts are planned overall; particularly sensitive are reductions that directly affect the medical care of vulnerable groups.

What is shrinking in the budget – and why this is more than just a “cost-saving measure”

STAY! was founded in 2009 and, according to the association, initially operated largely on a voluntary basis. In 2015, the city of Düsseldorf established a clearing center and an emergency fund to stabilize the work. This structure is central because it coordinates cases, initiates treatments, and closes funding gaps in acute situations when no health insurance applies.

According to available information, the funding recently consisted of two major blocks: 120,000 euros for treatments, medications, and surgeries, and 95,000 euros for staff of the clearing center and overhead costs – a total of 215,000 euros. In the 2026 budget draft, only 160,000 euros are allocated for this, about a third less.

In the city's electronic budget draft for 2026, an amount of 160,000 euros is also listed. However, a separate, clearly labeled individual item “Emergency Fund STAY/Clearing Center” is not shown as its own line according to the available research; the relevant budget line reflects the amount of 160,000 euros in the draft. For STAY!’s practice, the key point is: If the sum actually decreases, an administrative cut becomes an immediate bottleneck in care.

What consequences STAY! fears: Rejections, postponed procedures, unclear prospects

STAY! warns that with fewer funds, people would have to be turned away more often and surgeries could no longer be financed. The association describes a current case as exemplary of the problem: A patient with glaucoma can only be operated on if a cost coverage is signed in advance. Especially when consequential damage is imminent – up to and including blindness – unclear funding worsens the situation: Medically necessary procedures become an organizational question of whether a payer can be found in time.

In addition to treatment costs, the debate also concerns the clearing center itself. According to the association, it is unclear what will happen to the employees if personnel and overhead shares are no longer covered to the same extent as before. Thus, it is not only money for individual treatments that is at stake, but also the functionality of a structure that sorts cases, opens pathways to care, and creates the prerequisite for help to be organized “legally, in a planned manner, and anonymously.”

Why the clearing center plays a key role for people without papers or insurance

The service is aimed at undocumented refugees and people without health insurance. According to the association, the clearing center organizes anonymous access to medical help and at the same time tries, where possible, to bring those affected into regular care. For this group, the hurdles are high: Anyone without regular status or who cannot prove insurance often faces a dilemma between health care and fear of discovery when dealing with authorities and institutions.

Legal basis

Legally, Section 87 of the Residence Act plays an important role. The regulation governs the reporting and data transmission obligations of public authorities to immigration authorities. In practice, depending on the situation, responsibility, and data flow, this can increase concerns among those affected that a doctor or hospital visit will not remain without consequences. STAY! describes this inhibition threshold as so high that illnesses are often treated late and situations can escalate.

Added to this is the reality of life for many affected, who, according to available information, have sometimes lived in Düsseldorf for years, have housing, work, and are integrated into social structures – but without reliable legal or social security. At the latest in the case of serious illness or pregnancy, this uncertainty becomes existential: Then, not only the medical indication decides, but also whether a safe, affordable, and fear-free access to treatment is possible at all.

Political controversy: Surprise on one side, budget constraints on the other

STAY! criticizes that the cut comes as a surprise and without warning. In the political debate, it is countered that savings are part of the ongoing budget process. At a joint press conference of the CDU and Greens on Wednesday, March 11, Mirja Cordes (Alliance 90/The Greens) pointed out that there are cuts and discussions every year; organizations could have informed themselves in advance about the status of support.

Thus, two logics collide: For STAY!, the funding is not “disposable,” but the basis of ongoing medical care, where needs do not follow budget years. For the coalition, the overall calculation is paramount – combined with the announcement that the budget situation in 2027 is likely to be even more difficult and the pressure to save will not end. This makes the conflict bigger than a single budget line: It is about the question of what protective mechanisms a city maintains in times of tight budgets for people who hardly appear in the regular system, but in practice become ill, pregnant, have accidents, or develop chronic conditions.

Outlook

The key point is: A final decision will only be made with the budget resolution in the city council. Until then, it remains open whether the cut will remain in this form – or whether politics and administration will make adjustments. For STAY!, according to its own account, it is not just a subsidy at stake, but the question of to what extent medical help for people without insurance and without secure status can actually still be organized in 2026.