Think about how the data originates. Disease cannot be seen at a distance by radar. It depends on lab work and physician/nurse/institution reporting. Your thoughts hark back to the original epidemic map and the work of John Snow on the London cholera epidemic. http://www.udel.edu/johnmack/frec682/cholera/

What you are suggesting would require a pretty large staff to collect nationwide, GIS-tag, survey, and identify bacteria and viruses in the field and in hospitals. Whether that would be worth the extra cost is arguable, but I supported something along those lines quite a few years ago be done with excess blood draws. Use the blood to look at disease is the idea there. Both pathogens in blood and antibodies can be surveyed. It would be a partial view. There are HIPAA regulations that get in the way now.

Later, I worked on a commercial product that could diagnose disease in a hand-held unit. The technology wasn't quite there yet. Not for that level of miniaturization, but it may be closer now. Even for a subset though, it would require some sort of subsidy or the public just wouldn't buy it. But that could be a fantastic system that could give us what you are talking about.

So what you would like to see doesn't exist. There just isn't that kind of money thrown at disease. Many of us would like such a system. But it can't take money from anything already happening, and with the penurious anti-Keynesian Congress and anti-tax bumper-sticker memes that have taken over, it isn't going to happen.

What is out there?

CDC collects data that is pretty decent that comes in from various sources. That's the NNDSS. http://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/ Is it comprehensive? No. Is increasing the amount and timeliness of data a good idea? Probably not. It takes staff to collate, work with and present it. And, we are already in a near crisis in medicine because doctors and nurses can spend ridiculous amounts of time now typing data into computers instead of practicing medicine. It is quite arguable that the system(s) have become less effective due to that burden of data collection which has become confused with medicine.

The CDC list of notifiable diseases is here. http://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/script/conditionlist.aspx?type=0&yr=2014  This is what physicians, hospitals, clinics and public health are supposed to report. In many states, public health is so starved for funds they are much slower than they should be (except in emergencies--then the system works.)

States have their own laws on reportable disease. For instance, Oregon and California are here. https://public.health.oregon.gov/DiseasesConditions/CommunicableDisease/ReportingCommunicableDisease/Pages/reportable.aspx   http://www.cdph.ca.gov/healthinfo/Pages/ReportableDiseases.aspx

Then there is the MMWR. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/publications/index.html  This report and its sisters give a view into what is important and the difficulty of boiling things down to "a system" such a GIS map of occurrences. Such maps are useful, but they are only support, not core to the mission of fighting infectious disease.

Then there are academic studies of all kinds that get done in the field of epidemiology and infectious disease. That's a graduate education to cover.

I strongly recommend that you read Paul Ewald's book, "Evolution of Infectious Disease." global.oup.com/academic/product/evolution-of-infectious-disease-9780195111392   Reading it, you will come to understand better what some of the problems are, and they are biological and political. For instance, after Prof. Ewald documented that it was physicians in a hospital who vectored bacteria between patients, creating the evolutionary system that caused antibiotic resistance to appear on the wards, the hospital administration barred him from entry. And he is still persona non-grata AFAIK. No such study has been permitted since. So, to even start to get the system you suggest, would require laws forcing hospitals to allow entry to microbe surveyors/auditors. There is nothing like that now, except when HHS has cause to investigate a problem with a hospital that has taken medicare payments--for the problematic case. If the hospital doesn't take the medicare payments, or refunds them, HHS has no jurisdiction. Nobody does really. And it's rare that HHS will do any lab work. I don't know if they ever have.

Similarly, using excess blood draws for a national disease survey system would require laws passed requiring that blood be given up, and an exclusion from HIPAA for that data, as alluded to above. And such a system would be very interesting, probably useful in myriad ways, but only a partial view of infectious disease because not everything shows up in blood.

Google has its flutrends and may have other similar stuff. That has proven to be faster, much closer to real time in its view of influenza epidemic. Its accuracy is not always there, and that's to be expected. Its just looking at keywords lookups of things related to influenza.

It is also true that GIS is not the strongest map and can oversimplify matters. Diseases are communicated in complex ways, that vary by the disease. Insects, surfaces, air, contact, and those vary by conditions. There's a study of mine on that for influenza. It's just a piece of the picture that may help to convey the ways that the networks that transmit disease work. http://www.virologyj.com/content/7/1/98

The closest thing to real-time worldwide is Promed. http://www.promedmail.org/  Subscribe and watch what goes by. It's interesting sometimes.

Moving onto the world scene, WHO has programs and reports on diseases. Those are mostly oriented toward eradication or treatment of known disease. http://www.who.int/entity/en/  Take a look at the variety of programs.

I would like to have the kind of resource you suggest. It would be very nice. It would be fairly costly, although some revenue could be had perhaps. And it would probably take some laws and treaties to implement. It would also need to be expanded a bit to take into account how things work with communication of infectious disease.

The big missing piece is validated diagnosis/detection, and the wide range of organisms. When I was validating my model of influenza spread, the data available is by the standards of most professions, very poor.

This guy, Brian Grenfell has done some very nice work examining historical data. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6865/abs/414716a.html - Travelling waves and spatial hierarchies in measles epidemics (2001) B. T. Grenfell, O. N. Bjørnstad & J. Kappey

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/265/1392/211.short - Empirical determinants of measles metapopulation dynamics in England and Wales (1998) Bärbel Finkenstädt and Bryan Grenfell

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8802737&fileId=S0950268812000477 - Effects of influenza antivirals on individual and population immunity over many epidemic waves (2013) K. M. PEPIN, S. RILEY and B. T. GRENFELL

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1003635 - Spatial Transmission of 2009 Pandemic Influenza in the US (2014) Julia R. Gog, Sébastien Ballesteros, Cécile Viboud, Lone Simonsen, Ottar N. Bjornstad, Jeffrey Shaman, Dennis L. Chao, Farid Khan, Bryan T. Grenfell

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0102429#pone-0102429-g005 - Demonstrating the Use of High-Volume Electronic Medical Claims Data to Monitor Local and Regional Influenza Activity in the US (2014)  Cécile Viboud, Vivek Charu, Donald Olson, Sébastien Ballesteros, Julia Gog, Farid Khan, Bryan Grenfell, Lone Simonsen

We are working with a EHR/CDA in near real-time from a set of hospitals covering 2M of persons. it identifies the cases by clustering and analysing its trends (automatic validation based in the lab results and using an proprietary "deepthink technology"). Based in the admission data from patients per cluster, we do georeferentiation based in work and home place using an API from google and deliver the output using .net.

Using the BI output of Deepthink, the system is doing risk assessment and classification at the hospital ER admission to help differential diagnostic.