The answer to that is a definite "maybe".
The question of <PERSON>'s moral worth is not answerable within the systems used by the Good Place and the Bad Place, which is why <PERSON> ended up in the Medium Place.
Bear in mind the exact circumstances that led to her unique situation: She lived a slightly below-average human life, being a selfish, cocaine-addicted, sex-addicted Wall Street type until she came up with a plan to start a foundation that would channel her wealth into good causes. She wrote up the plan in great detail, and then died shortly afterwards before putting any of it into action. It was her sister who actually carried the plan out. The representatives of the Good Place were thus faced with a dilemma: given that she didn't actually create the foundation itself, but she did draw up the plan and it wouldn't have existed without her, does <PERSON> get the points for the foundation's good works?
If her previous life produced a points total of, say, -50000, and the total required to get into the Good Place is, say, 100000, the total point value generated by the foundation would be around 150000, which would be enough to get her into the Good Place... if it counted. 45
But did it count? The Bad Place people said it shouldn't count; the Good Place people thought it should. They couldn't come to an agreement, hence the compromise of the Medium Place.
If the foundation-related points are allowed to count, then yes, <PERSON> is the human with the highest point total in 500 years. But does this mean that <PERSON> is the "best" person in 500 years? I don't think so, although this is admittedly speculative. <PERSON>'s post-death personality is not good: she's selfish, hedonistic, and doesn't seem to care about others at all. It's likely that if she had survived, even if she had carried out the foundation plan, she would have accumulated more negative points just by living the same kind of terrible life she'd been living all along, and her point total would ultimately have slid into the negatives.
If anything, I think <PERSON>'s case is designed to show up the flaws in the Good Place/Bad Place system. Considering her character in the round, there's no meaningful sense in which <PERSON> is a better person than <PERSON>, and yet <PERSON> is spared the Bad Place, essentially on a technicality. 45