There are those who say that it's important for the state to provide nutritional food when people are ill in hospital, and providing it free is one way of aiding recovery more quickly. That makes sense, but is conditional on the food being both nutritious and consumed. However, there's no guarantee that a meal will be nutritious when cost is the prime consideration. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how good a meal is, if it's not eaten because it's disliked, there won't be any benefit and the patient will become weaker.
It's surprising how a patient's day is punctuated by mealtimes; boredom or loneliness is relieved by the appearance of the food trolley, but the anticipation is always greater than the reality. I recently witnessed two weeks of hospital food in Spain and, from that experience, can tell you that it's abysmal. A mug of tepid milk with a sachet of decaffeinated coffee and a tiny packet of biscuits, and only biscuits, was standard fare for breakfast; just occasionally being substituted by a roll and a sachet of olive oil. There was then a long wait until lunch, when minimal protein and overcooked vegetables with all the goodness boiled out of them was the norm. Another coffee and biscuits for tea and a repeat of lunch quality for dinner was hardly adequate and needed supplementing. Ongoing cuts in expenditure were evident by the offerings on the trays, both in food quality and presentation. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that it doesn't cost more to present and provide properly cooked food; and there's no excuse for overcooked vegetables, that's down to poor management.
The health service, whether in Spain or the UK, is stretched but obliged to put food on the plate, which it does reluctantly. Hospital patients are not providing meals for themselves at home, so are, in effect, saving money. There's no reason why they shouldn't contribute to achieve a better standard, although there's also a need to recognise that people of limited means may have to be subsidised. Nevertheless, the majority of patients could pay for their food, and could then rightfully expect a higher quality. Patients could even opt for an alternative, such as meals brought in by family rather than eating the hospital food provided, but that would be the patient's decision. Even now it's being done, as I witnessed take-away pizzas being delivered to the ward.
There could possibly be a two-tier system, with a choice of free food for those who prefer it or can't afford to pay, and the provision of better meals if they're paid for. By giving some relief to the overall costs because of increased income, the basic free food could be prepared with more thought and be more nutritious. There would be a better standard for those who choose to pay, as seen in private hospitals.
Governments don't want to cut health expenditure as that would be an unpopular, political move, but they could ensure that the money allocated is spent more wisely. Throwing money at the problem isn't necessarily an answer. Perhaps the authorities don't need to charge patients for their food, just manage that sector more efficiently and then provide nutritional food as part of the treatment to ensure a benefit to a patient's recovery. There's plenty here to digest before deciding on the best policy, but the sooner a decision is made the better it will be for hospital patients.