I don't know. But the idea has been around for awhile:

As privacy concerns have assumed center stage, the many compelling advantages of the UHI [Universal Health Identifier] including aspects of a UHI that will promote privacy are getting lost in the debate. A unique identifier would allow for more rapid and accurate identification and integration of the proper patient records, so patients can receive safer and higher quality health care. Every aspect of health care from making sure the right person gets the right blood transfusion to making sure the right insurance company pays for care requires accurate identification of individuals. A unique identifier is desirable because the identifier used today is a person's name. Since names are not unique we have to collect additional information to identify an individual such as birth date, gender, SSN, and mother's maiden name. As more information is collected error rates increase. It is currently estimated that there is an error rate of 5 to 8 percent in identifying patients. In addition, the information many people have an opportunity to see personally identifiable information. Replacing a name with an identifier could reduce errors and provide greater privacy protection.

A UHI can improve confidentiality, by providing accurate identification without unnecessarily disclosing a patient's identity. For example, it can eliminate the need to use names on many claims forms and clinical records. It can replace the multiple pieces of identifying information (e.g., name, birth date, gender, SSN) about a patient that today must accompany clinical and financial information to ensure positive identification.

OK, so now all my medical records are stored by my UHI, instead of my name (or would be, if I hadn't dropped out of the health care system because I have no insurance). But how do they connect my number with me? The only answer I can see -- and certainly the answer that many corporations would like to see -- is a (putatively) tamper-proof equivalent of a Real ID card, that has my UHI on it (as opposed to the tatoo UHI, the the subcutaneous implant. Ha ha only serious).

So....

What happens when the health insurance companies start cross-checking my UHI to my Google searches on health issues* (if any), and then deny me care because that statistical pattern indicates I might have a pre-existing condition? Or any condition at all?

Well, in happier times I would have felt that privacy laws might protect me. However, if our recent experience with putatively legalizing Bush's program of warrentless surveillance is any guide, I think the following steps are more likely:

1. Massive and very profitable lawbreaking by corporations and government working together, followed by

2. Retroactive immunity for the corporations, with complete concealment of the scale of the lawbreaking, complete with

3. Betrayal of earlier promises to hold the corporations accountable for the lawbreaking by Democratic Presidential nominee under the banner of "reform."*

Just saying.

Explain to me how the government and corporations working together to set up a massive, profitable, and illegal system of surveillance of all internet traffic is different, in any way except for the technical platform, from government and corporatins working together to set up a massive, profitable, and illegal system of monitoring medical data?

NOTE Please don't tell me it can't happen; data is stolen all the time, identity data especially so.