It's hard to prove a negative, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say "No". I've looked up all the combinations of the cast and crew I can think of, and while I've found a lot of information from the time, and a lot of (relatively recent vintage) reviews of this quickly forgotten TV movie—and for all the hype about the book and movie's impact you'll see mentioned in these post-hoc retrospectives, its effects were highly localized—and I can't find anyone even mentioning it.
But we can also look at the type of novel and type of TV movie and see how often anyone apologizes for them, and it's pretty close to none. Wikipedia lists it as a social novel, which includes some classic novels like Uncle Tom's Cabin and Grapes of Wrath, but I put it more in the ripped-from-the-headline-exploitation category, like any random episode of "Law & Order", where the claim to be fiction allows libel with impunity. Or, say, "Valley of the Dolls", with its thinly disguised references to Judy Garland, Carole Landis and Ethel Merman.
There is a similar category of works that purports to be non-fiction, but isn't, or probably isn't, like Go Ask Alice, Coffee, Tea or Me? and House of 1,0000 Pleasures. It's all of a piece: Books and films turned out for a quick buck to exploit some current social issue.
Jaffe never apologized for it any more than she apologized for her other work, any more than Jacqueline Suzanne did, nor generally any of the people who worked on these things.
For those saying art isn't something that should be apologized for, I think it's legitimate to question the artistic aspirations at play here, and would further submit the artistic masterpieces of Birth of the Nation, Triumph of the Will and Escape (The Piña Colada Song): If you use your art to create a false impression of a group of people who end up being persecuted as a result—particularly as a result of your attempting to catch a pop trend, an apology is certainly warranted.