Not many Americans would consider going to a doctor who isn’t licensed to practice medicine. But what about your barber? Your interior decorator? Or the person who boxes your Amazon delivery?

Today, these and dozens of other entry- and midlevel professions are covered by “occupational licenses.” In some states, more than 70 professions require licenses — and that doesn’t include the countless others that are licensed by local governments. And although this might sound like an obscure administrative issue, it has far-reaching consequences. Lawmakers, economists and activists have started to worry that over-licensing significantly limits professional opportunities for people who need them most.

On Tuesday, a Senate subcommittee led by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that deals with competition policy will hold a hearing on occupational licensing to discuss how licenses can stifle economic opportunity and competition. It’s the latest sign that occupational licensing laws are receiving greater attention on the national level, even though it is largely a state and local issue.

Occupational licenses typically require individuals to receive approval from a government-chartered board before starting a particular job or business — a process that can be expensive, time-consuming, or both. Historically, licenses applied only to people in a limited number of professions, such as doctors, pilots and lawyers, yet the list of licensed industries has become more lengthy — and less defensible — in recent decades. Since the 1950s, the percentage of jobs licensed at the state level has quintupled, rising from 5 percent to at least 25 percent.

When you add in local licensing requirements, well over a thousand professions are now affected, including hundreds in low- and middle-income categories.

To understand just how out of control occupational licensing is, first consider the relatively reasonable example of emergency medical technicians. The Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public-interest law firm, estimated in 2012 that the average EMT license costs $85 and requires 33 days of education and training.

Now compare that to other professions where the stakes aren’t so high — barbers, for instance. Alabama is the only state that doesn’t license them. On average, a would-be hair trimmer must spend more than a year in training and fork over $130. This may not seem like much, but it may be a serious barrier for a low-income job seeker who cannot afford to quit one job to train for another profession, often at his or her own expense and without a paycheck. In Nevada, the education and training requirement for barbers is 890 days — about two-and-a-half years.

Cosmetologists must be licensed in all 50 states, and the average cost is $142, plus more than a year of education and training, and two exams. Commercial carpenters and cabinet makers, licensed in 29 states and the District of Columbia, fare even worse. They’re looking at about $300 and roughly 450 days in school.

The list goes on — and gets increasingly more ridiculous. Seven states regulate tree trimmers, forcing them to fork over $174 and spend 369 days learning the ropes. Upholsterers and packagers — people who put things in boxes — also have the privilege of paying the government to ply their trade. And God forbid you want to become an interior designer in Nevada, Louisiana, Florida, or the District of Columbia. You’d better have nearly $400 and six years of time to get a license.

Some states have it far worse than others. Overall, the level of licensing defies the traditional red state/blue state divide. Of the 102 low- and mid-income jobs surveyed by the Institute for Justice, Louisiana regulates no fewer than 71. In Wyoming, the number is only 24. If you consider the total cost and time burden of their licenses, Arizona rises to the top with 64 licensed industries, with associated fees of $455 and training requirements of 599 days. California comes in a close second, with Colorado and Wyoming bringing up the rear.

Why have occupational licenses grown so much? There are many reasons, but one of the most concerning is that some special interests want to be licensed. Last July, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers produced a 77-page report that carefully examined the evidence surrounding occupational licensing. It said that empirical work suggests that “licensed professions’ degree of political influence is one of the most important factors in determining whether States regulate an occupation.” The logic is simple: Well-connected companies can limit competition by increasing the barriers for potential competitors to enter the industry.

The costs of these licensing requirements are borne by American workers who forgo these professions and the U.S. economy as a whole. A 2011 paper by University of Minnesota professor Dr. Morris Kleiner estimated that “licensing results in 2.85 million fewer jobs,” mostly in low- and middle-income professions. These burdens fall hardest on veterans, immigrants and people who run afoul of the criminal justice system.

Similarly, licensing hinders entrepreneurship in low-income communities. Stephen Slivinski, a senior research fellow at Arizona State University, concluded in early 2015 that states with the highest rate of occupational licensure “had an average entrepreneurship rate 11 percent lower than the average for all states.” At the other end, states with fewer licenses saw increased low-income entrepreneurship.

People and organizations across the political spectrum are waking up to this reality. The White House released a Framework for Policymakers last year in which it argued policymakers should pare back harmful licenses to “help our economy grow to its full potential.” The administration is now discussing this issue with Koch Industries, which describes licenses as “government overreach that is restricting the ability for people to help improve their lives.” At the state level, governors in Wisconsin, Indiana and Iowa have each taken steps in the past two years to prevent the creation of new and senseless licenses.

State and local lawmakers have the biggest role to play in rolling back occupational licensing. But the federal government has a role to play, too — especially in shining the national spotlight on this little-known issue. Tuesday’s hearing, led by Lee, marks a significant step in that direction. But more needs to be done. There is a growing, bipartisan consensus that occupational licensing stifles economic opportunity for those who need it most. Will more lawmakers take note — or, better yet, action?

Andy Koenig is senior policy adviser at Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce.

Authors: