Düsseldorf cuts aid for undocumented refugees: STAY! Medinetz warns of gaps in care

A decision is pending in the Düsseldorf city council that could have immediate consequences for people without health insurance and without secure residency status: In the budget consultation for 2026, the funds for STAY! Medinetz are to be significantly reduced. The initiative organizes medical assistance for people who often have no reliable access to care through a city-funded clearing center and an emergency fund. The planned cuts were reported by, among others, "Ddorf-Aktuell" on March 11, 2026; the budget will be discussed on Thursday, March 19.

Less money for emergency fund and clearing center

Specifically, it concerns the funding of two components: the clearing center and the emergency fund. So far, according to information from the STAY! environment, a total of 215,000 euros were available – 120,000 euros for the emergency fund, from which treatments, medications, and operations are paid, as well as 95,000 euros for personnel and overhead of the clearing center. In the 2026 budget draft, only 160,000 euros are planned for both together, about a third less.

STAY! Medinetz, founded in 2009, sees its own ability to work and, above all, the care of those affected at risk as a result. In practice, the amount is not only about counseling, but often about whether a clinic or practice will treat at all: For many procedures, a signed cost coverage is required in advance. STAY! refers in this context to a current case of a patient with glaucoma; without secured funding, medical deterioration up to blindness threatens.

Why this structure is hard to replace for those affected

The clearing center fulfills a pivotal function in this field: It arranges medical help and at the same time tries to open up ways to regular care – for example, by clarifying entitlements or by finding a solution that does not immediately lead to a life-threatening situation. The fact that the city of Düsseldorf established the clearing center and the emergency fund in 2015 was described in the municipal debate at the time as an early model in North Rhine-Westphalia (documented, among others, by "Lokalkompass" and in earlier reports by "Ddorf-Aktuell" on the introduction of the structures).

For people without papers, access to the health system is particularly sensitive. Part of the reluctance does not arise from medical, but from social and legal risks: As soon as authorities are involved, questions about residency status may arise. Although medical confidentiality applies in the medical field, Section 87 of the Residence Act also contains regulations on the information obligations of public authorities. In practice, there is often concern that formal cost coverage through authorities could have consequences. This very situation makes low-threshold, advisory centers one of the few realistic doors to treatment for many affected people – before illnesses escalate or pregnancies have to be accompanied without adequate care.

Political dispute: "general austerity" versus "special need for protection"

STAY! criticizes that the cut comes as a surprise and without sufficient warning; the perspective of employees in the clearing center is also unclear as a result. From the point of view of the black-green coalition, however, the decision is classified as part of a broader austerity course. At a joint press conference of the CDU and the Greens on March 11, Green politician Mirja Cordes pointed out that there are cuts and discussions every year; sponsors could have anticipated how support would develop. References to this line can also be found in the context of publications on coalition communication (including in the press area of the CDU council faction Düsseldorf).

This is exactly where the core conflict lies: budget discipline meets an offer that cannot simply be compensated for by regular structures. Because the emergency fund is not a grant "for projects," but an instrument that makes treatment possible in individual cases in the first place. If this fund becomes smaller, the risk increases that cases will be rejected or postponed – with medical follow-up costs and humanitarian consequences that can hardly be repaired later.

Looking ahead to 2027: Planning security becomes a problem

In addition: In the political debate, it has already been indicated that the budget situation in 2027 could become even more difficult and further cuts are being examined. For sponsors in the social sector, this is more than a side note. Where staff, network partners, and treatment paths depend on reliability, even the prospect of another year of savings can lead to structures breaking down – long before a formal decision is made.

The 2026 budget has not yet been finally decided. But even now, the STAY! Medinetz case shows how quickly austerity pressure reaches services that mainly affect people who have hardly any political voice. The decision in the council will therefore not only be a budget issue, but also one about how a municipality organizes care when the regular system is in fact not accessible to part of the population.