The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) is designed to improve care coordination and chronic care management, while reducing costs and improving quality. A number of research studies have identified the PCMH as promising in improving patient satisfaction and clinical care while reducing costs through avoidance of emergency department (ED) use and inpatient admissions. While the role of the Care Coordinator in primary care homes is relatively new, an expanding body of research suggests that primary care practices that have embraced the PCMH model of care tend to have consistent positive patient outcomes. Moreover, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) found that targeted care coordination interventions in medical homes are most successful with high-risk, high-need patients, and the best models are those in which a Care Coordinator establishes and maintains a relationship with the patient. The purpose of the current study was to assess health outcomes of type 2 diabetic patients in PCMH compared to type 2 diabetic patients served by non-PCMH. The study sample consisted of patients with type 2 diabetes from two different National Committee of Quality Assurance (NCQA) designated level 3 PCMH's, including a PCMH primary care organization in Virginia, a PCMH multispecialty organization in Tennessee, and an internal medicine group that is not a NCQA designated PCMH providing care coordination in Virginia. The overall sample size was 95 participants with 72 participants experiencing care coordination and 23 participants with no care coordination. The specific clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes for the type 2 diabetic patients were glycated hemoglobin (HgbA1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), low density lipids (LDL), emergency department visits (EDV), hospitalizations (HSPs), and readmissions (REAs). Baseline clinical and utilization measures were selected based on a trigger of an A1c > 7.0% while the baseline for the utilization outcomes was 6 months prior. The 2 nd measurement for each of the above clinical outcomes was obtained at the next office visit and 6 months post baseline measure for the utilization outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study variables and nonparametric tests were conducted to assess changes and differences in the health outcomes described above between baseline and 2nd measurement within and between the 2 groups of patients (coordinated and non-coordinated patients). Demographic data showed participants were more likely to be male (n = 65, 68.4%), White (n = 75, 78.9%), married (n = 67, 70.5%) and < 55 years old (n = 63, 66.3%). Although Care Coordination participants were more likely to be White (84.3% vs. 69.6%) and < 55 years old (69.4% vs. 56.5%) compared to non-Care Coordination participants, no statistically significant differences were observed. Among clinical outcomes, no statistically significant differences were observed at baseline between groups. However at baseline, non-Care Coordination participants presented with, on average, 6% higher in clinical outcomes scores than non-Care Coordination participants with the largest difference in LDL (M = 117.11, SD = 61.98 vs. M = 103.75, SD = 69.94). Further, there was a significant difference between the two groups in the second assessment of HgbA1c with Care Coordinated patients having a significantly lower average of HgbA1c compared to those in non-coordinated care. Within the Care Coordination group, only HgbA1c demonstrated a statistically significant change from baseline (M = 9.43, SD = 1.83 vs. M = 8.38, SD = 1.68, p < 0.001). Within the non-Care Coordination group, only LDL demonstrated a statistically significant change from baseline (M = 117.11, SD = 61.98 vs. M = 88.00, SD = 24.00, p < 0.049). Among utilization outcomes, no statistically significant differences were observed at baseline between groups. However at baseline, Care Coordination participants presented a larger number of ED visits or hospitalizations than non-Care Coordinated participants with the largest difference in hospitalizations (M = .13, SD = .39 vs. M = .06, SD = .24). For either group, no statistical differences were observed in utilization from baseline to 2nd measure. Future studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted to determine the impact of care coordination on cost, clinical outcomes, and the patient experience. Continued partnerships among payors and primary care providers could reinforce care coordination, help reduce the cost of fragmented care, and enhance patient outcomes. Care coordination, employed in the PCMH model, could have a profound impact on the future of the U.S. healthcare system, especially pertaining to managing high-volume, high-cost chronic diseases such as diabetes.