Cost-effectiveness of Midwifery Group Practice in a Birth Centre Compared with Standard Hospital Maternity Care Arrangements. Toohill Jocelyn1, Turkstra Erika2, Gamble Jenny1, Scuffham Paul2 1Research Centre for Clinical and Community Practice Innovation Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. 2 School of Medicine Griffith University, Logan Campus, Brisbane, Australia. 4131. Email: j.toohill@griffith.edu.au Background: Care of pregnant women before, during and after birth provided by midwives vs medical models of care are often debated around quality, but few studies focus on costs and cost-effectiveness. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of MGP with a similar group of women receiving standard maternity care (SC). Method: Women were recruited at their 36-week antenatal appointment who met the eligibility criteria for birth centre care regardless of their current model of care. Data were checked from medical chart audit, women's diaries, and the hospital accounting system. Costing data was collected from week 36 of pregnancy until 6-weeks postpartum. GP visit costs were calculated using the diaries and government fees. Results: 102 women (N=52 MGP; N=50 SC) fulfilled the study criteria. Women in MGP care experienced less induction of labour, required less antenatal visits, received more postnatal care, and neonates were admitted to SCN less often than those receiving SC. MGP care cost less compared with a similar group of women receiving SC based on 1) the hospital accounting system ($4,696 vs. $5,521 p<0.001) and 2) federal government health funding arrangements ($4,722 vs. $5,641 p< 0.001). Conclusions: For women at low risk of complications midwifery group practice care is a cost-effective option, with better clinical outcomes and lower total costs.