Seven diabetes care quality indicators for monitoring GMP performance were investigated in this study. Each indicator offered an overall evaluation of diabetes care, allowing deviations in recommended practice and variability in quality of care to be discerned. It turned out that GMP performance was quite heterogeneous and shaped by socioeconomic conditions as well as systemic issues on the level of the practice. These findings contributed new insights into the causes of quality inequalities in diabetes care and underscored the necessity for a more focused strategy in their evaluation and improvement. By identifying concrete causes for differentiated GMP execution, this study helps to explain the ways in which healthcare practitioners may enhance their practices to better facilitate patient outcomes. The current pay-for-performance plan would be really beneficial for the inclusion of a more diversified, more individualized set of performance indicators about the efficiency of every single practitioner, rather than only on a broader practice outcome. Beyond that, implementation of non-adjusted diabetes indicators ensures the care quality assessment is done from the viewpoint of the patient, thus creating a more patient-centered and effective system. These recommendations propose a revolutionary manner to upgrade the P4P model and thus establish a new standard of performance to provide higher provider accountability with better patient care. The research findings indicated that diabetes care seems less effective in rural areas within larger practices with older GPs and in GMPs serving less educated adults. External factors unrelated to the GP have a considerable impact on diabetes care quality, indicating that inequities related to structure and socioeconomic factors play an important role in the outcome of healthcare. The study, through analysis of the relationship, disputes the conventional method of assessment of care and highlights the necessity for unique targeted interventions in addressing health inequalities that exist in primary care. Research into quality indicators of diabetes care has yielded mixed conclusions. The study encourages that P4P schemes include an adjusted version of the composite indicator to assure that GPs are fairly and effectively motivated. The stepwise performance evaluation process consisting of composite and adjusted composite measures provides a transparent means of identifying underperforming GMPs and areas for intervention. In addition, this approach invigorates GP engagement, motivating them to take part in the assessment of their performance while assuring that the P4P model is more dynamic and equitable, hence able to deliver meaningful improvements in diabetes care.