Düsseldorf cuts aid for undocumented refugees: STAY! Medinetz warns of dramatic consequences

In Düsseldorf's 2026 budget, the funds for STAY! Medinetz have been significantly reduced. The cut affects not only a fund, but also a structure through which people without health insurance can anonymously organize medical assistance. The conflict shows how closely municipal budget consolidation is linked to very concrete health risks for a particularly vulnerable group.

The Düsseldorf city council discussed the 2026 budget on March 19; according to a press release from the city, it was also adopted on that day. The political debate also focuses on the financing of the STAY! association and its clearing office: According to STAY!, the funds previously provided for the emergency fund, clearing office, and overhead have been cut by about a third to 160,000 euros.

What exactly was cut

STAY! was founded in 2009 and supports refugees, among other things, with questions about medical care. In the early years, according to sources close to the initiative, the work was mainly carried out on a voluntary basis. Since 2015, STAY! in Düsseldorf has had a clearing office and an emergency fund, which were financially supported by the city to enable examinations, treatments, medications, or operations in acute cases.

Most recently, according to the available information, the city provided 120,000 euros for the emergency fund. Another 95,000 euros went to staff for the clearing office and overhead costs. Together, this amounted to funding of 215,000 euros. In the 2026 budget, these funds have now been reduced to a total of 160,000 euros – a cut that cannot be explained by minor shifts, but rather affects the overall operational capability of the structure.

In the draft of the 2026 budget plan, there is also a municipal item of 160,000 euros per year over several years; however, in the document it is not explicitly labeled as "STAY!" or "emergency fund/clearing office," but appears as an amount within a generic budget item. Politically decisive is: The new funding level mentioned in the debate (160,000 euros) corresponds to the sum that is now used as the benchmark for the work of the clearing office and emergency fund.

STAY! claims that this will have immediate consequences for care: people would have to be turned away, and operations could no longer be financed to a greater extent. As a current example, the association cites a patient with glaucoma, for whom an operation depends on prior cost coverage; without intervention, there is a risk of loss of vision.

Why the clearing office is socially relevant

The cut does not affect purely symbolic funding. The clearing office is part of a municipal practice that is intended to open up access to medical treatment especially for people without regular health insurance – through referrals to doctors, advice on insurance issues, and support in accessing services, without those affected having to disclose their situation at every stage.

For people without valid papers, not only poverty is an obstacle, but often also the concern that contact with authorities or the use of certain services could have consequences for their residency status. Legally, the situation is complex: There is no blanket obligation for doctors or hospitals to "report" patients. At the same time, data exchange between public authorities and immigration offices can play a role in certain constellations under § 87 of the Residence Act. In practice, this uncertainty alone can be enough to delay treatment – and thus allow illnesses to progress until they become acute and more expensive.

It is precisely at this point that the clearing office fulfills a dual function: it is intended to initiate medical care in the first place and at the same time help clarify responsibilities and possible benefit pathways before a case escalates. Socially, this is relevant because prevention and early treatment can not only avoid suffering, but also reduce consequential costs – whereas a later emergency usually ends up in the hospital and is then significantly more expensive.

Düsseldorf formally established the structure in 2015, including expanding the staff of the clearing office at STAY! and an emergency fund to finance acute cases. The current cut therefore does not affect a short-term model project, but an instrument that has been established for years and is tailored to a narrowly defined group that would otherwise fall through the cracks of the regular system.

The criticism of the decision and the outlook for 2027

STAY! criticizes that the cut was made unexpectedly and without warning. The uncertainty affects not only the financing of individual treatments, but also the perspective of the staff in the clearing office – a point that is crucial in practice: If staff positions are eliminated or only secured for a limited period, the continuity of casework suffers, and complex medical or social law clarifications become more difficult.

In a joint press conference by the CDU and the Greens, 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. At the same time, the CDU-Green coalition announced that the budget situation in 2027 is likely to become even more difficult; further savings will be sought.

Thus, the conflict extends beyond 2026. Politically, it is not just about a single budget line, but about priorities in the city's social budget: whether Düsseldorf stabilizes an offer that cushions gaps in care for people without regular access to the health system – or whether consolidation starts precisely where consequences can quickly become existential in individual cases.

How severe the effects actually are depends on how the city specifically structures the use of funds and whether there is additional leeway, alternative financing options, or political corrections in implementation. For those affected and for the work of STAY!, however, it is already clear: With 160,000 euros, the scope for action is narrower – and medical assistance that was previously possible could in the future more often fail due to lack of funding.