New research suggests that giving birth at home is cheaper than having a baby at a hospital and just as safe for low-risk births.

Researchers at the University of British Columbia (UBC) found that planned home births saved an average $2,338 compared to a planned hospital birth with a midwife. Compared to a planned hospital birth with a physician, the savings were even greater: $2,541.

"Cost savings are associated with the place of birth," Patricia Janssen, lead author of the study and professor in UBC's School of Population and Public Health, said in a statement. "It just makes sense that if you have a home birth you're not paying hospital charges."

For the study, researchers looked at all planned home births attended by registered midwives or physicians in which the mothers met the criteria for home birth.

Janssen and her colleagues also compared health costs for babies during the first year of life. For infants born to mothers who had planned a home birth with a registered midwife, first-year health costs were $810 less than those for babies born in hospital with a midwife, and $1,146 less than those for physician-attended hospital births.

Janssen says the savings indicates positive health outcomes for planned home births with a registered midwife.

"If there were 'hidden' health risks associated with planned home births, such as a brain injury diagnosed after the neonatal period, these risks would show up in costs to the health care system -- and we are not seeing them," she said.

A previous study conducted earlier this year found that hospital births are only safer than having a baby at home if the mother is poor.

The new findings, which are detailed in PLOS One, follow earlier research by Janssen that demonstrated that planned home births resulted in fewer interventions and similar rates of adverse newborn outcomes compared to planned hospital births among women who met the criteria for home births.