That depends on how you define success.
Are more people covered? Is health insurance more affordable? Are patients “protected”?
In general, the data says yes.
From Jonathan Cohn, a summary of PPACA’s impact on coverage:
the proportion of working-aged adults without insurance dropped from 20 percent in the late summer of 2013 to 15 percent in the late spring of 2014...there are still a lot of Americans walking around without health insurance today. But there are about 9.5 million fewer of them than there were last fall… [emphasis added]
re Affordability, among those who enrolled in a PPACA-compliant plan, about half saw premiums increase – with the other half seeing a reduction. Notably, the self-reported health status of enrollees was generally lower than the overall population. This isn’t surprising; many likely couldn’t get coverage due to pre-existing conditions before PPACA.
Of course, many got subsidized insurance, which significantly reduced their premium cost. Some may say this is a problem; I’d suggest that one can’t fairly evaluate PPACA on individuals’ ability to afford health insurance without accepting the need for and role of subsidies. Which, btw, are paid for by various fees and taxes on health plans, devices, tanning beds, and rich benefit plans and reductions in reimbursement for Medicare.
The patient protection piece is harder to assess; the elimination of medical underwriting, requirement that plans cover kids to age 26, mandated enrollment, subsidies for small employers, and enforcement of actions against health plans who try to finagle their way to excluding certain groups (AIDS patients, for one), are all helpful. However, given that health insurers have always made their money by not insuring those who might have claims, this will be a long, difficult, and up-and-down struggle.
Old ways don’t change without a lot of continued, intense, focused pressure.
What does this mean for you?
PPACA is here to stay. It is pretty far from perfect, but it’s better than the alternative.